Nightjar wrote:


An alternative view is the Peter Principle, which states that people
will rise in an organisation until they reach the point at which they
are no longer competent to do their job, after which they will stop
getting promoted.



Turds always float to the top.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Tim Watts wrote:
Jo Stein wrote:


IG was a good chessplayer as a student. He has some ideeas that I like.
17:10 minutes into this video he tell that we know almost everything
today. Science is not an infinite field, it is a finite field.
We have broken the code of nature, and for most practical purposes
there are no need for any new laws of nature.
http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=713

They were saying that after Newton had wrapped up calculus and the laws of
motion.

See a pattern? ;-

It's actually far far worse than that. Not only have the key
breakthroughs in 20th century philosophy mathematics and physics all
told us that we don't know what going on, but in all cases that we
never actually can..

Chaos mathematics, Godel's incompleteness principle, Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle, Turing's incomputability theorems..

Jo is a man with physucs envy, who longs for and believes that some
formula will actually express everything there is to know and enable us
to predict and control anything we want.

Or 'fundamentally overeducated for his ability to understand' as we like
to say.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , F
news@nowhere.? escribió:

One 'trick' that helps is to use smaller plates.

+1.

It's not so much what you eat, it's how much you eat.

I think there is another aspect to this though. If WHAT you eat leaves
you vitally short of some mineral or vitamin you WILL want to eat a lot
of it.

I've been taking vitamin D as I don't get outside enough and it seems to
help the felling of lusting after fatty things.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...

-- Wrong again penis.

Fixed you sig for you.

You mean that you forged a usenet post, penis. Always the mark if the
fundamentally dishonest

if the fundamentally dishonest, what?
It would help greatly if you used English or some close derivative.

And yes you were wrong again.

Nope. UHT is ****e.

What's that got to do with my statement that fresh and UHT milk is
different?
having trouble reading posts still?


Fixed it properly this time.

--
Wrong against penis.

On 31.07.2012 18:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
Jo Stein wrote:


IG was a good chessplayer as a student. He has some ideeas that I like.
17:10 minutes into this video he tell that we know almost everything
today. Science is not an infinite field, it is a finite field.
We have broken the code of nature, and for most practical purposes
there are no need for any new laws of nature.
http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=713

They were saying that after Newton had wrapped up calculus and the
laws of motion.

See a pattern? ;-

It's actually far far worse than that. Not only have the key
breakthroughs in 20th century philosophy mathematics and physics all
told us that we don't know what going on, but in all cases that we
never actually can..

Chaos mathematics, Godel's incompleteness principle, Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle, Turing's incomputability theorems..

Jo is a man with physucs envy, who longs for and believes that some
formula will actually express everything there is to know and enable us
to predict and control anything we want.

Or 'fundamentally overeducated for his ability to understand' as we like
to say.

I do not now have time for a long answer,
and I think that Isaac Asimov has written something
that explains why there is an end to science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0
--
jo
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its
way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the
false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just
as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov

Jo Stein wrote:
On 31.07.2012 18:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
Jo Stein wrote:


IG was a good chessplayer as a student. He has some ideeas that I like.
17:10 minutes into this video he tell that we know almost everything
today. Science is not an infinite field, it is a finite field.
We have broken the code of nature, and for most practical purposes
there are no need for any new laws of nature.
http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=713

They were saying that after Newton had wrapped up calculus and the
laws of motion.

See a pattern? ;-

It's actually far far worse than that. Not only have the key
breakthroughs in 20th century philosophy mathematics and physics all
told us that we don't know what going on, but in all cases that we
never actually can..

Chaos mathematics, Godel's incompleteness principle, Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle, Turing's incomputability theorems..

Jo is a man with physucs envy, who longs for and believes that some
formula will actually express everything there is to know and enable us
to predict and control anything we want.

Or 'fundamentally overeducated for his ability to understand' as we like
to say.

I do not now have time for a long answer,
and I think that Isaac Asimov has written something
that explains why there is an end to science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0


The end to science rest on the metaphysics of science itself.

Science is, in the limit, a detailed investigation of a metapyhsical
view we have of things, ALREADY, not of the world-in-itself.

Which is why, mutas mutandis, you can say with equal justification that
the sun goes round the earth, as the earth goes round the sun, as it
depends on where you (metaphysically) draw the centre.

The point is that what is, just is. And a diagram of a place is not the
place. It is a diagram. It leaves stuff out. It is incomplete. It has to
be incomplete to be a diagram at all. In the limit, the diagram
certainly doesn't contain a representation of the diagram in the place
it represents.

http://allartdirectory.com/wp-conten...awingHands.jpg


The modern advances in physics and mathematics accept that this deeply
recursive bug in the way of doing thinking means that thinking cant
suss out everything, it certainly cant suss out thinking or you well get
intellectual howlround. Which is why not a few philosophers have gone
barmy.

What that means is that metaphyics is a priori of science, and there is
NOTHING to help us determine which metaphysic is in fact 'true' Cf te
Matrix minus the red pill.

Which leaves science in the position of being self consistent but in the
limit completely devoid of demsonstrable truth content.

It works, in its own terms, is all that we can say in its support,
which is pretty bloody good, but not the absolute answer we would like.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Jo Stein wrote

His book is based on knowledge gained during 100 years of
breeding pigs at Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway.

Pigs aint humans, stupid.

Physiologically, the two are very similar

No they arent on body build when running wild like the
original hunter gatherers did when humans were evolving.

None of the hunter gatherers that were still around when the
white man showed up had anything like the body build of pigs.

And how they ate was nothing like how wild pigs eat either.

- more so in many ways than humans and apes,

Not on body build and how they eat.

but nobody wants pigs to lose weight. They want them to gain it.

Yeah, its completely silly to claim that works with pigs works with humans.

You never see pigs look anything like concentration
camp inmates either, even when you starve the pigs.
The physiology is in fact completely different at that level.

Mike Tomlinson wrote
F news@nowhere.? wrote

One 'trick' that helps is to use smaller plates.

+1.

It's not so much what you eat, it's how much you eat.

That last isnt really true. Compare eating lots
of lettuce with lots of icecream for example.

The Natural Philosopher wrote
Mike Tomlinson wrote
F news@nowhere.? wrote

One 'trick' that helps is to use smaller plates.

+1.

It's not so much what you eat, it's how much you eat.

I think there is another aspect to this though. If WHAT you eat leaves you
vitally short of some mineral or vitamin you WILL want to eat a lot of it.

Nope, if that was true you'd see those who dont
get enough of a particular mineral or vitamin
pigging out on what they eat, and you dont,
particularly when they eat meat and no veg at all etc.

I've been taking vitamin D as I don't get outside enough and it seems to
help the felling of lusting after fatty things.

It would be interesting to test that with a proper double blind trial.

On 31/07/2012 17:04, Jo Stein wrote:
....
Science, climate science and its consensus is something completely
different. If I were religious, climate skeptics should go to hell.
....

As I said, all the aspects of a religion - a belief that has to be taken
on faith, as it cannot be proven, and non-believers are persecuted.

Colin Bignell

"Rod Speed" wrote:

Yeah, its completely silly to claim that works with pigs works with humans.

You never see pigs look anything like concentration
camp inmates either, even when you starve the pigs.
The physiology is in fact completely different at that level.

More Antipodean bull****.