beecee

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm on the old side. It's not always the case, but  paradigm social change, like towards less rigid notions of gender, perhaps require generational lengths of time to become 'normal'.

I'm on the mature side of 70, approaching the 80 mark. Although techically behind the times, as far as IT goes, view new ideas on merit and morals. I 100% support, both theoretically and practically equality of the sexes, but reject any attempt at superiority of one over the other.

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Right. We thought we were making equal pay and reproductive rights 'normal' since 1969. Now they're brand new issues again, because the generation that came along behind us grew old enough to have all the power.

No, not necessarilly because of any generation, (unless you can show evidence) but simply because of the attitudes of big business and saving a few dollars I suggest. This aspect of equal pay though should be achieved by Sunday morning in Australia, if our progressive Labor party ( of which I am a member) win our elections. The same party that gave us the best universal health care system in the world, compuslory superannuation, National Disability Scheme, and other inititives and control beneficial to society in general.

4 minutes ago, geordief said:

A matter of no consequence,admittedly.

Plenty of consquence actually imo. I always try and use reputable links. 

https://www.english-online.at/news-articles/sports/do-women-and-men-play-soccer-differently.htm

After watching the  finals  of the FIFA Women’s World Cup and Japan’s victory  over the United States there is one main question that comes up: What’s the difference between men’s and women’s soccer?

Many sports experts have found out that woman’s soccer games are smoother and the game is not interrupted as often as with men. There are fewer injuries and fouled players get up more quickly than men, who often fake  injuries and stall  for time. Women are more honest  when they play soccer. There is no swearing and pushing around.

Women’s soccer matches tend to be slower. Because their lungs are smaller than men’s a smaller amount of oxygen  can get into the blood and the lungs. Thus, women cannot play as fast as men over a longer period of time.  Because both men’s and women’s soccer games are 90 minutes long women are likely to get tired sooner. A recent study  also shows that men activate  different muscles  and their  hips during a game.

There are other differences as well. Because women are, on average ,smaller than men, they have more space on the field and more room for attacking . Female defenders cannot defend the whole  penalty area . The result is that more goals are scored in women’s games than in men’s.

Women’s soccer has improved  technically over the past years. The handling of the ball and dribbling  has become much better. Passes are more precise too.

The FIFA Women’s World Cup in Germany has shown that there can be as much enthusiasm in the game as in men’s soccer. Stadiums were packed. The spectators were delighted  to see high- class games.

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That which is progressive is not necessarily new.

https://www.google.com/search?q=progressive&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&sxsrf=ALiCzsbvVEjjOiPMyXpMPcYMgwrlE4-e8A%3A16529965696

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

For one thing, they play better soccer.

Define better.

29 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 What I'm really curious about is why people occasionally suggest that substantive change, or progressive change, in any area of public life cannot take place until a certain generation has died off. Why is it considered more likely that a fresh young cohort will achieve what the youth of the 1960's and 70's failed to achieve, or regain what we did achieve that is now being destroyed? 

Opposite points of view on social issues are older than I am, older than democracy, older than sport.   

I look at progression from a moral and objective angle. That which is new and so called progressive, is not necessarily morally superior to some older established moral stance. 

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

If Caitlyn Jenner had competed as a women in the Olympics she would have probably won 10 gold metals while setting world records.

IMO it is simply unfair to women born as a women to allow transgender women to compete against them.     

I totally agree with those sentiments, and while it maybe difficult to have a segregated sections for transgenders, perhaps that is just something we must accept. 

Although as I said, our NRL does have catagorisations for disability people with strict expert categories within that category. What I mean by difficult for transgenders, obviously is in refeence to how many there are that want to compete.

On 5/19/2022 at 2:48 AM, geordief said:

Seems to me  you have wrongly attributed that quote to Bertand Russel(the preceding passage,though  does indeed seem to be from him.

All I did was quote from the following article....https://iai.tv/articles/common-sense-leads-philosophy-astray-auid-2075 by Marcus Arvan....Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Tampa.

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

And what do you think of the caloric theory ?

The evidence and data for modern thermodynamics and atomic theory has overridden and made it obsolete.  

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

OK my bad, I assumed you were referring to their interpretation's, as you've suggested in previous thread's; please clarify their interpretations, as they relate to this thread.

Already clarified.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That doesn't argue the point I was making, as regards to ("the coin") the way of thinking; his dislike of philosophy suggests a bias, that 'he' can't see past, or are you cherry picking to justify your own bias?

Your coin analogy is just that, an analogy, and most understand the limitations of most analogies. And no one has said they dislike philsophy, afterall it is the foundation stone of science. It seems your own often expressed bias and usual cherry picking as exposed by others,  has blinkered you to their interpretation regarding philosophy. Or read Krauss'book.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) and it doesn't argue my comment; BTW did he actually author what you've quoted him saying? I haven't got the time to investigate... 

The logical fallacy re an appeal to authority, is relevant when for example, asking a butcher his opinion of brain surgery. Otherwise of course we all appeal to authority at sometime or other, you, me and the bloke next door. Yes, I'm reasonably sure it is attributed to Berty. I havn't the time or the inclination to investigate any further.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I joined this site because I was arrogant enough to believe I knew better than a trained scientist, I stayed because the member's here taught me the error's in my thimking and because I trusted what they taught me; and like you (I love science now) I thought philosophy was wrong and superceded by science until @Eise taught me the error in my thinking...

Good for you! I joined because I love science, and have learnt more and more regarding many areas of science I was ignorant about, from my peers. I was enthusiastic certainly not arrogant. I also learnt that in essence philosophy while being the foundation stone of science, does have limitations, faults  and riddled with absurdities as expressed by Dicky Feynman. “We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: you don’t know what you are talking about! The second one says: what do you mean by ‘talking’? What do you mean by ‘you’? What do you mean by ‘know’?” (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1, 1963).

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We all think, but poor philosophers are like poor scientist's, they just lack the training.

Which is why we all need to appeal to authority at one time or another.

To expand...an appeal to the "proper" authorities, while not proof, is evidence to support a particular case. It can be substantial evidence that puts a particular case beyond reasonable doubt. eg: Evidence for evolution, (so much so, that it is now considered fact) evidence for BH's...evidence for water on Mars.

On 5/19/2022 at 1:19 AM, studiot said:

I would add to this my observation that neither discipline is set in stone either.

Hands up those who think either Philosophy or Physics was the same as it was 50 years ago?; 100 years ago? ; 200 years ago? ; 500years ago ?

Of course neither is set in stone. I interprete Krauss, Degrasse-Tyson and Feynman, as simply expressing (at least with the first two) that areas of thought that once was the exclusive domain of philsophers, is now covered and treated by science. Feynman criticises then the absurdities that sometimes philosophy and philsophers seem to go. I see much validity in both points.

What's wrong with progressivism? Absolutely nothing!! In fact it is a desired aspect ofr any and all progressive societies. We have elections in Australia this Saturday and we have the present tired old conservative government now playing politics and claiming now is not the time for change, against the Labor party, the party that gave us probably the best universal health scheme in the world, compulsory employer and employee contributing superannuation, general wage growth instead of stagnation, and a party for the people, leaving no one behind. 

The party I have been presently handing out leaflets for and have been a member of.

But progressivnism like political correctnness can reach a stage of going mad and silly and shooting themselves in the foot in the progress.

48 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I confess to some confusion over how a purely fitness-based system of eligibility in a mass-plus-strength sport would be more inclusive.  

Whenever I peer in here, I see good hearted people wanting to make things fair. 

I'm pretty good hearted, and I believe as fair as anyone should be, along of course with the reality of the situation at hand. 😉

50 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 But removal of gendered sports would instantly remove probably 90% of women from eligibility from mass-strength-fast-twitch fiber dependent games like football. 

Absolutely although probably closer to 95%. Just to add that in Australia's NRL, (national rugby league) we do have the WNRL, and that is proving ever more popular and is aired prior to our men's match of the day.

53 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Small People's Football?  Shotput With Delicate Arms League?  Rowing with Lower Upper Body Strength League?

Somehow it's hard to see high school or college kids flocking to such offerings.  

Our junior league is as I have already said, mixed with boys and girls playing together until about the age of 10 or so and when puberty is reached and boys start becoming stronger, faster and more durable. They are sorted by size, maturity, as well as age. Similar to weight for age with horse racing. 

The NRL also have a disability foremat in a similar vane for those that desire in that category . 

51 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I'd be okay with that. Suppose you exclude the brutal sports from co-ed classification and keep them segregated?

Define "brutal sports? Note: We had an International cricketer hit in the neck by a rising bouncer and later died.https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2281925-phillip-hughes-dies-at-age-25-after-being-struck-by-cricket-ball

56 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Probably most women could live with that, but it still leaves the transgendered out in the cold.  

Can't really speak for the transgendered, but most woment already live with the status quo with regards to women and sport, with no problems at all.

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 I suppose, if they really wanted to play American football or rugby, they'd have to out in different leagues for the best fit. 

Know SFA about American football, but both the superior codes of Rugby League and Rugby Union, have womens sides, both amateur and professionals for those wanting to play.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Of course, big mass-strength-twitch sports already exclude a lot of men, and team sports divided by age disadvatage slow-growing boys, while unfairly benefiting fast-growing girls. How about the experts and organizers of each sport  coming up with an innovative system of classification for their sport; try out a few ideas and see what works?

In recent times with mixed sex playing junior Rugby, a weight for age system applies, based on size, maturity and age. Once puberty is reached and surpassed, though it goes by age alone, up to the professional ranks and then its only segregation by sex, male or female.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

They wouldn't have to spectate: they could participate.  

Or both. I once participated, now I am a spectator.

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It's not an analogy, it's a scenario, and it's not like your strawman either. You obviously wouldn't qualify the way my example did.

Your choice, scenario is OK with me, but still invalid for obvious reasons.

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

My 80 year old woman qualified for every test she needed to pass for heavyweight boxing in this scenario, and she's a monster in the ring. She's strong enough, and has the capabilities and endurance, and thinks you should take your "protect the women" and shove it. Why won't you let her box with Tyson Fury if she has all the skills? Is it her age? Is it her gender?

Your 80 year old women, (poor old dear) or if you like an 80 year old man,( poor old bastard)  is simply an example and validation of remarks I have made now in a couple of threads, with regards to political correctness being taken too far...from the sublime to the ridiculious. 

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Simply quoting your previous statements is not the same as answering the question.

It was the answer.

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you say Straw Man?

Can you say fact?

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

One of us is.

Good. So let's drop the American black issue and the 1930's racial segregation in America.

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I have no idea where you are going with this, but it certainly has nothing to do with mankind uniting in friendship and competition.

Of course you do, you are just playing one-upmanship.

Again.....

I think we have many examples of sport bringing mankind together, the Olympic games being the prime example. And in more recent times, the Invictus games. And certainly no more of a stretch then your comment, "the rest of mankind" 

31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Does that sound like what the arguments I mentioned said? When I read them back, they say "rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability". Why does that sound like anybody would be competing against anybody else who was stronger and faster? Isn't that what classification is all about? If you run the 100m in a certain time, and fall between this weight and that, you qualify to compete against others, regardless of age or gender, who also qualified. 

Testing for sporting prowess and capabilities (as you say) automatically sort those valid "divisions" out, in sports where the male natural phyisicality demands segregation. Other sports not so much so most certainly.  It is an observational fact that generally speaking, men would have a biological advantage in certain sports that women could not overcome. It logically follows then that segregation is the right choice. Did you note the example I gave with junior rugby league and union in Australia, and the non segregation up to a certain age? 

And of course to add to that is the valid segregation of professional and amateur sprtsman and women. 

31 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 As for your boxing example, if an 80-year old woman (trangendered or not) qualifies for the heavyweight class (one that's centered on various capabilities that aren't age and gender), why would you think that person is automatically invalid?

Is that really a valid analogy? Even as a young man, I would never had hopped into the ring with Joe Frazier. I was never a professional boxer, first and foremost, and would never have the capabilities to stand even stand a chance...as that poor 80 year old women you chose to throw into the ring.

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Guess you don't know what it was like to be a black in America in the 1930's.

No I don't, other then they still went to war against a common enemy, when the need arose. With the segregation in America, I would say that this has improved somewhat since the 1930"s? Not perfect by any means and as with our own indigenous population, plenty more work and effort to be done to achieve full equality. But are we not now off topic?

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And in what way did mankind unite in friendship and competition after that event? 

 As I said....I'm not sure how many people were tuned to the Olympic games either, but a reasonably large number I suggest. And I'm rather confident that the sportsmanship and friendliness between those two remarkable women champions, was duly noted  and appreciated and reflected on by that reasonably large number of viewers.

Now you of course can reflect on the bad and negative side of sporting competiton, as much as you like, ( we can find that in any endeavour) but sporting competitions will continue as always, and the associated rivalry, friendship etc will continue and blossom. I don't believe we have had any wars over sport yet, or the fact that one competitor beat another from another country. 

Sport of course can also be used as a lever against unprovoked aggression and invasion, as per Russia and Putin invading the Ukraine. Sport along with other means is being used as punishment and as a disinsentive.

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This must be the logic JCM mentioned.

52 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So that a person of any gender and age can compete in the categories they qualify for. I didn't see logic anywherre else.

Are you saying that someone of female gender would qualify to get in the ring with the world heavy weight boxing champion? Or qualify to play professional rugby league or union with larger, stronger, faster males? Testing for sporting prowess and capabilities (as you say) automatically sort those valid "divisions" out, in sports where the male natural phyisicality demands segregation. 

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Your link mentioned Jesse Owens and Luz Long defying Nazi sentiments. Perfect example of what I am saying. It brought those two athletes together, but shortly afterward the rest of mankind killed 50,000,000 of their own. Hardly an example of "bringing mankind together".

Mankind is not perfect. There are "mad" people out there, criminals, evil arseholes. The American Jesse Owens, helped by Long, showed the Hitler philsophy for what it was...bunkum. The vast majority of the world united agaainst that bunkum.

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm also unsure how Titmus beating Ledecky brought mankind together either.

I'm not sure how many people were tuned to the Olympic games either, but a reasonably large number I suggest. And I'm rather confident that the sportsmanship and friendliness between those two remarkable women champions, was duly noted  and appreciated and reflected on by that reasonably large number of viewers.

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

Hello beecee.

as this is your thread I suppose I should ask you what you mean by Physics and Philosophy, and why is this (science) news ?

It is an artlcle from physorg, but I certainly have no objection if mods see it more condusive to another section or the lounge...which I was toying with anyway.

20 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

How small are we talking about? Only one has to be real for it to be a civilization changing event.  

100% correct!!! I just want that revealed and validated before I kick the bucket. 😉

21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

It would seem that as high as 10% are unexplained and not because of a lack of data. 

I'm not really sure of the actual figures and certainly do not dispute yours. I will say though that the other 90% mostly rather mundane glitches weather phenomena and light trickery, mistaken for alien controlled aircraft, is why so many are more cynical of the 10% you talk about. 

Not sure if you have expressed your feelings on the school children in the Zimbabwe incident yet?

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Seriously, after 36 pages, we still have people who think things like gender or age are important to sports? I thought we'd at least established that rankings should rely on all sorts of other factors, and that age and gender become meaningless if you've actually bothered to test for sporting capability. Are we going backwards on this, or did I skip some pages that argue we can't possibly test men and women/young and old for the same factors?

I'm really not sure what you are on about. Segregation of male and female in sports that require muscle strength, mass and size, are to protect the female from harm. Other sports such as darts, horse riding perhaps, see other qualities and human properties that support the concept of male and female playing together. Another segregating factor is amateurism and professionalism. I'm certainly not going to get in the ring with the world heavy weight boxxing champion...nor for that matter, with the world feather weight champion. As I mentioned earlier in Australia, junior rugby league is played with a mixture of sexes up until the ages of 10 or so. From there though, as puberty takes hold and males get bigger and stronger, they have separate competitions, as obviously they should.

No I havn't really read all of this thread, just popped in on occasions to express what I see as logic and common sense. 

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

Like @Peterkin I'd have to also answer 'no' to this one.

"Bring mankind together in friendship as well as competition" is very poetic but is a bit of a stretch. A person may find friendship and competition in sport, but the rest of 'mankind' is left out of the picture. I've never found a 'friend in sport' due to someone else competing in the Olympics.

I think we have many examples of sport bringing mankind together, the Olympic games being the prime example. And certainly no more of a stretch then your comment, "the rest of mankind"

https://stacker.com/stories/4096/30-examples-sports-bringing-world-together

Probably the greatest swimmer ever, the Americal Kate Ledecky after being beaten by Australia's Arriane Titmus at the last Olympics.

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 When we see something that, while unknown, is inexplicable by by all other evidence do we really require that the object land on the Whitehouse lawn? 

Considering that we have been noting these UFO's/UAP's for quite a while now, I would think (if they were aliens) that it would be time to stop and introduce themselves. An advanced civilisation doing research and observing us is an interesting possiblity, but by the same token, I'm sure they would have noted some intelliegnce with us humans, and like the Vulcans in Star Trek, stop and introduce themselves. The analogy of us to ants on an ant hill isn't really valid in my opnion.

The most important thing with UFO's and UAP's is that they (a small percentage) remain unidentified. That of course includes Alien controlled craft. 

18 minutes ago, joigus said:

Just a molecule that couldn't conceivably have been produced by geology wouldn't be enough?

Yes, you can add that to the list also. 

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

You set your standards very high, @beecee. Finding a fossil is hard enough on Earth!

My number one wish before I kick the bucket, is that the extraordinary confirmation of ETL is found and validated as such. Why shouldn't the standards be very high, considering it would be answering mankind's greatest question?

6 hours ago, joigus said:

So we need a theory of life, or a definition at least.

Oparin - Haldane theory' Abiogenisis.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The problem here is, none of them are applying the scientific way of thinking; Lawrence Krauss and Neil Degrasse Tyson clearly use a different way of thinking about an experiment, as they do in the interpretations you speak of; as for Bertrand Russell he's got it arse about face, science is what we don't yet know:philsophy is asking, are we sure we know that?

They certainly are applying the scientific method, and with Krauss and Degrasse-Tyson, simply recognising the fact that areas that were once solely the domain of philsophers, are now the domain of scientists. Or as another great scientist once said...... “We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: you don’t know what you are talking about! The second one says: what do you mean by ‘talking’? What do you mean by ‘you’? What do you mean by ‘know’?” (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1, 1963).  Dicky is often quoted for his dislike of philosophy, (although again like Krauss and Degrasse-Tyson) I see it more as statements of having had its day as far as science is concerned) He often in quotes attributed to him, highlights the absurdities of philosophy, as highlighted above. He is known for his often humouress remarks, about the dopey and foolish exersises in  linguistic sophistry, as practised by philsophers. (some)

Your comment on Bertrand Russell is ironic at best, considering that he is described as a British philosopher, logician, and social critic. (WIKI)

In essence we are all philsophers to some extent, but in reality, mostly poor philsophers.

10 hours ago, Genady said:

Yet, anything short of a writhing octopus will raise skepticism among astrobiologists about what has been detected.

6 hours ago, joigus said:

In the absence of that, what chemical would our distinguished members consider to be a dead giveaway? --Puns aside.

The best we can do is say that conditions exist or once did exist, to support the existence and evolution of life, as we know it. Not until we discover an undeniable Alien relic or fossil, ascertain undeniable constructions such as cities, bridges, or vehicles, or of course actual physical contact, can we be really certain.

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

no

Yes, I remeber you expressing that erronious opinion in another thread.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Relevance to gender?

As I expressed more fully earlier.....

10 hours ago, beecee said:

Of course they need to segregate, when the skills of that sport, favour the male, such as strength muscle etc. And of course we have and always will have professional and amateur sport. People, men and women, with the necessary skills to take them to the top of their game/sport, deserve and rightly chose to make a living out of it.

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

While my philosophy class in college bored me to tears, I think everyone would benefit from studying philosophy for ethics, logic, how to critically discuss, and how to argue rationally. I think philosophy gets a bad rap due to its previous position in the 'sciences'.

Good points, mostly and I don't disagree, but sometimes philosophy can be taken to the nth degree. An example? The notion/philosophy of Trump and company, as well as a couple of political ratbags in Australia, using the rights of individual freedoms to chose for ourselves, over riding the edicts and mandates of heath authorities to make vaccinations compulsory in certain industries, and conveneintly ignoring that their actions could well be detrimental to other innocent parties. 

3 hours ago, geordief said:

If Philosophy is the study of what we do not know ,that does not diminish its value.

I accept that philosophy lays the ground work and foundations of which science has been built. I do not under-estimate its value. But in many areas that once were pure philosophy, are now covered by science/cosmology/physics. 

 Bertrand Russell writes:

"Philosophy…is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority…All definite knowledge—so I should contend—belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack on all sides; this No Man’s Land is philosophy.

The real question is not whether philosophical arguments based on commonsense are deeply fallible, but rather what the takeaway lesson is. What are our philosophical options given the fallibility of commonsense, and which option is best?"

from.....https://iai.tv/articles/common-sense-leads-philosophy-astray-auid-2075

3 hours ago, geordief said:

I doubt we are at all close to the end of either scientific or philosophical  progress,more's  the  reason for satisfaction.

Certainly not science, but in areas certain aspects of philsophy are now in the domain of science.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

Krauss also is not Robinson Crusoe in his criticism of philsophy...Degrasee Tyson is another, and also the late great Richard Feynman. Krauss'remarks though certainly drew heaps of criticism, and I would add, probably also increased the sales of his book, "A Universe from Nothing"

My take is he wasn't totally rubbishing philsophy, (other then one particular philsopher) but discussing and pointing out its limitations and the areas now covered by physics and science.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

 taught to see science. Presumably this refers to how non-scientists are taught.

Yes. hence my remark about me being around science forums for too long. 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

yes

Then you would agree that like science, it has been shown to bring mankind together in friendship as well as competition.

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No pages 'convinced' me. My two basic opinion on sports: They should not be segregated or commercialized. 

It's unlikely that I'll see either of those desiderata come to pass,

Of course they need to segregate, when the skills of that sport, favour the male, such as strength muscle etc. And of course we have and always will have professional and amateur sport. People, men and women, with the necessary skills to take them to the top of their game/sport, deserve and rightly chose to make a living out of it.

Have you ever played sport?