Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness

Healthy Food Defines You
It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:29 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:21 am 
Offline
Manatee
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 492
Location: portland
You should check out this documentary it really good http://www.wholesomegoodness.org/ . In it they talk about mixing the fish genes with tomatoes. I thought that they were saying it like a hypothetical thing but my boyfriend thought they were saying it had already been done. I tried looking on the internet to find out but everything I found said that it hadn’t really happened or it had been tried but didn’t protect the crops from freezing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:23 am 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: florida
compassionategirl wrote:

hats off to scientists. way harder than being a lawyer.


Not to me... I couldn't understand what was going on in law school half the time. Judges opinions seem entirely arbitrary and nonsensical to me, and trying to making sense out of nonsense for exams was driving me crazy. ... Physics, chemistry, calculus is easy though because it follows uniform rules that don't vary from courtroom to courtroom.

_________________
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:47 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
willpeavy wrote:
compassionategirl wrote:

hats off to scientists. way harder than being a lawyer.


Not to me... I couldn't understand what was going on in law school half the time. Judges opinions seem entirely arbitrary and nonsensical to me, and trying to making sense out of nonsense for exams was driving me crazy. ... Physics, chemistry, calculus is easy though because it follows uniform rules that don't vary from courtroom to courtroom.


Hmm...interesting Will. Well, I agree about the nonsense judges decisions part of what you said, but that is exactly why law is easier (to me anyway). There is no right or wrong (as is evidenced by appellate courts overturning trial decisions and the Supreme Court either overturning or confirming appellate court rulings). So, since there is no right or wrong, black or white answer, all you need to do is argue persuasively, know how to distinguish cases that hurt your client (or argue that the case was "wrongly decided and thus should not be followed), and/or state why a favourable case governs your clients situation. Failing that, throw in a policy argument and/or argue that the "rationale" behind the legal principle in question is applicable or inapplicable.

My point is there is no right or wrong so I find that to be easier.

With science on the other hand, the art of bulls**t doesnt work - there is a right or wrong answer, and I always got the answers wrong in science. :shock: I just didnt "get" science and I always hated it (probably because I didnt excel in it). My brain is so NOT science oriented. :shock:

I also hated geography.

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:53 pm 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: florida
compassionategirl wrote:
willpeavy wrote:
compassionategirl wrote:

hats off to scientists. way harder than being a lawyer.


Not to me... I couldn't understand what was going on in law school half the time. Judges opinions seem entirely arbitrary and nonsensical to me, and trying to making sense out of nonsense for exams was driving me crazy. ... Physics, chemistry, calculus is easy though because it follows uniform rules that don't vary from courtroom to courtroom.


Hmm...interesting Will. Well, I agree about the nonsense judges decisions part of what you said, but that is exactly why law is easier (to me anyway). There is no right or wrong (as is evidenced by appellate courts overturning trial decisions and the Supreme Court either overturning or confirming appellate court rulings). So, since there is no right or wrong, black or white answer, all you need to do is argue persuasively, know how to distinguish cases that hurt your client (or argue that the case was "wrongly decided and thus should not be followed), and/or state why a favourable case governs your clients situation. Failing that, throw in a policy argument and/or argue that the "rationale" behind the legal principle in question is applicable or inapplicable.

My point is there is no right or wrong so I find that to be easier.



You make it sound easy.... I think women are better equipped to be lawyers because hormonal differences during adolescence gives women a brain which can better handle verbal information, and because girls are enculturated to express themselves more verbally from an early age.

_________________
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:20 pm 
Offline
Gorilla

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 897
Location: West Virginia
Unfortunately scientists are expected to be great speakers along with knowing all the science. It's actually crucial to getting grants and all that crap.

_________________
http://thetoofarfuture.blogspot.com/
http://www.soundclick.com/kunderesque


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:41 pm 
Offline
Manatee

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:41 pm
Posts: 469
compassionategirl wrote:

With science on the other hand, the art of bulls**t doesnt work - there is .


Uhmm, sorry to disagree but yes it does.

Look at the registration of official think tanks, in Washington D.C. Science think tanks are becoming big business solely for the act of creating ambiguity and incorrect persuasion, in public policy.

For example, a think tank will find some minute science tangent that shows that something like petroleum gasses do not harm the environment, instead helping the environment. They will also show that there is no global increase in temperature and that there is no connection between CO2 buildup and heavy industry, when ice sample in the artic completely show that there is. ChevronTexaco will learn about this think tank's report and contribute million of dollars so the think tank can get publicity for the report. Legislators, who are heavily lobbied by CheveronTexaco will get the report feed actually into formulating bills.

This practice is growing and think tank registration is exploding, we people just finding weird scientific quarks that help Corporate America image, knowing they will get rewarded for doing so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:58 pm 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: florida
Jay wrote:
Unfortunately scientists are expected to be great speakers along with knowing all the science. It's actually crucial to getting grants and all that crap.


Most of the scientists I've met in America can barely even speak English. So it can't be that crucial to succeeding here

_________________
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:00 pm 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: florida
9nines wrote:
compassionategirl wrote:

With science on the other hand, the art of bulls**t doesnt work - there is .


Uhmm, sorry to disagree but yes it does.

Look at the registration of official think tanks, in Washington D.C. Science think tanks are becoming big business solely for the act of creating ambiguity and incorrect persuasion, in public policy.

For example, a think tank will find some minute science tangent that shows that something like petroleum gasses do not harm the environment, instead helping the environment. They will also show that there is no global increase in temperature and that there is no connection between CO2 buildup and heavy industry, when ice sample in the artic completely show that there is. ChevronTexaco will learn about this think tank's report and contribute million of dollars so the think tank can get publicity for the report. Legislators, who are heavily lobbied by CheveronTexaco will get the report feed actually into formulating bills.

This practice is growing and think tank registration is exploding, we people just finding weird scientific quarks that help Corporate America image, knowing they will get rewarded for doing so.


I think CG was talking about science vs. law exams. On a physics exam, if you don't know how to work the problem there is no way around it. On a law exam, if you don't know the material you can b.s. your way around it if you are good at that kind of thing.

_________________
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:32 pm 
Offline
Gorilla

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 897
Location: West Virginia
willpeavy wrote:
Jay wrote:
Unfortunately scientists are expected to be great speakers along with knowing all the science. It's actually crucial to getting grants and all that crap.


Most of the scientists I've met in America can barely even speak English. So it can't be that crucial to succeeding here

Hey, what do I know? :lol: Good luck.

_________________
http://thetoofarfuture.blogspot.com/
http://www.soundclick.com/kunderesque


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:43 pm 
Offline
Elephant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: florida
Jay wrote:
willpeavy wrote:
Jay wrote:
Unfortunately scientists are expected to be great speakers along with knowing all the science. It's actually crucial to getting grants and all that crap.


Most of the scientists I've met in America can barely even speak English. So it can't be that crucial to succeeding here

Hey, what do I know? :lol: Good luck.


I know you're being sarcastic, but my last two jobs were working in universities (Florida State and Univ of Washington) and interacting with professors all day. A lot of the tenure trackers in the physical sciences at both places barely spoke English. Even a lot of the native English speakers, especially physicists, are some real oddballs that have abnormal social skills (that's putting it mildly). I don't mean any offense to anyone. I actually like eccentric introverts a lot and usually get along with them very well. But I've met lots of scientists that come across more like Asperger's types than public speakers, and they seem to be doing pretty well in their field.

_________________
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:22 am 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:02 am
Posts: 1193
compassionategirl wrote:
I also hated geography.


That's a surprise..........

"Matt, is Birmingham in London?", "Matt, is Manchester in London?"
:shock: :roll: :lol: :wink:

_________________
Davey's favourite tipple was "Blow My Skull", a cocktail he served in half-pint glasses consisting of rum, brandy, gin, port, Madeira, sherry and claret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: strawberries with fish genes in them!
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:31 am 
Offline
Elephant

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:02 am
Posts: 1193
compassionategirl wrote:
ya, i would love to live in a place where i could grown my own food. that would be awesome.

i think jonathan is gonna do that once he moves to ireland in a few years. maybe i will secretly move in next door to him and raid his garden daily when he is away at work.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
(hope he doesnt see this thread - otherwise, my plan is a bust :shock: ).


Hhhhmmmm, I think the harvest may fail if you're cultivating it Nat........

Secretly live next door to Jonathan??? Will you be the invisible next door neighbour or something. :roll: You're such a drama queen that you wouldn't be able to remain inconspicious for too long........

You might have a problem raiding it daily in the winter as well..........

_________________
Davey's favourite tipple was "Blow My Skull", a cocktail he served in half-pint glasses consisting of rum, brandy, gin, port, Madeira, sherry and claret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:27 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
willpeavy wrote:
9nines wrote:
compassionategirl wrote:

With science on the other hand, the art of bulls**t doesnt work - there is .


Uhmm, sorry to disagree but yes it does.

Look at the registration of official think tanks, in Washington D.C. Science think tanks are becoming big business solely for the act of creating ambiguity and incorrect persuasion, in public policy.

For example, a think tank will find some minute science tangent that shows that something like petroleum gasses do not harm the environment, instead helping the environment. They will also show that there is no global increase in temperature and that there is no connection between CO2 buildup and heavy industry, when ice sample in the artic completely show that there is. ChevronTexaco will learn about this think tank's report and contribute million of dollars so the think tank can get publicity for the report. Legislators, who are heavily lobbied by CheveronTexaco will get the report feed actually into formulating bills.

This practice is growing and think tank registration is exploding, we people just finding weird scientific quarks that help Corporate America image, knowing they will get rewarded for doing so.



I think CG was talking about science vs. law exams. On a physics exam, if you don't know how to work the problem there is no way around it. On a law exam, if you don't know the material you can b.s. your way around it if you are good at that kind of thing.


sorry for this long post but I have 15 minutes to kill in between classes and this topic we are discussing about science versus law is interesting to me.

yes Will that is the context I had in mind. For example, on a chemistry exam - there is only one correct answer, like carbon mixed with oxygen is carbon dioxide ( :shock: is that even chemistry? and if so, is what I just said correct? :shock: have no clue). Anyway, getting back to a language which I do understand, law is different. On a law exam, whether Smith v. Smith should be applied to resolve the legal issue is arguable. And, even if it is "obvious" that smith v. smith should apply, you can still try to manipulate what the legal principle emerging from Smith v. Smith actually is - i.e. whether Smith v. Smith should be construed narrowly such that it does NOT cover your client's situation, or whether it should be construed broadly such that it DOES cover your client's situation. And even still, if the outcomes of all that are not what you want, you can construct an argument that Smith v. Smith and the emerging legal principle should not apply on grounds of public policy, or that the case was wrongly decided, or that an obiter part of a judgment should be followed, etc.

One "black and white" rule in law is that lower courts of a particular jurisdiction are bound by the decisions of higher courts of that same jurisdiction. So a trial judge would be bound by an higher court's decision whether he agrees with it or not. So you would think that this would be one instance of a clear cut case, a black and white legal answer. But for reasons outlined above, it is not. One side will argue before the court that "the appeal court has ruled on this very issue and so you are bound to follow that decision." The other side will argue that no, that case - the seemingly "correct, black and white answer" of what the law is - is somehow distinguishable.

So my point is that even when a legal case appears clear cut and there DOES appear to be a "right" answer to the legal problem, there is always room for argument, and that is of course one of the key "lawyering" skills. But not so with science - for example, I cannot try and make an argument on my exam as to why CO2 was wrongly constructed, should have actually been CO3, or that even though we think CO2 is carbin dioxide it really is carbon monoxide! There is only one correct answer, and if you dont select it on an exam, you are wrong, plain and simple. no way around not knowing other than guessing at it.

That is what I meant 9nines. But yes, I agree with what you said. Scientific processes are far from value-neutral and that "black and white" science is often manipulated and interpretted in ways that lead to differing interpretive results.

But I still dont get that though. For example, with global warming. Is there not a "right" or "wrong", black and white answer to the question of global warming and which gasses cause it? Why is this debatable? How can it be debatable? I dont get it. Wouldnt that be like saying that it is debatable that hydrogen plus oxygen = water? :? :shock:

:( So i dont get why/how some environmental/scientific issues are debatable? is it because they cant be confirmed conclusively? if not, then why not (like the global warming example).

Speaking of global warming, I must say that if anybody doubts it, come to Toronto, and see people walking around in shorts in January. if that aint global warming in effect, then I dont know what is!

Looking forward to some science lessons in this thread! 8)

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Last edited by compassionategirl on Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:30 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
Tarz wrote:
compassionategirl wrote:
I also hated geography.


That's a surprise..........

"Matt, is Birmingham in London?", "Matt, is Manchester in London?"
:shock: :roll: :lol: :wink:



:lol: :shock:

Matt, I have also been meaning to ask you whether Wales is in London. :wink:

P.S. to all. I didnt mean to suggest that law is easy, or that you can pass a law exam without being familiar with the material. Of course you need to know the range of possible legal principles to answer a question. But my point was simply that there is no "RIGHT" answer you must hit. As long as you can construct a principled argument as to why it should be case ABC and not XYZ that should apply, then you're good to go!

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:55 pm 
Offline
Stegosaurus

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Posts: 3110
madcat wrote:
You should check out this documentary it really good http://www.wholesomegoodness.org/ . In it they talk about mixing the fish genes with tomatoes. I thought that they were saying it like a hypothetical thing but my boyfriend thought they were saying it had already been done. I tried looking on the internet to find out but everything I found said that it hadn’t really happened or it had been tried but didn’t protect the crops from freezing.


yes I heard about the tomatoes thing madcat and all I can say is :shock:

_________________
People reviled today for their activism will be tomorrow's angels, and people respected today for their power will be tomorrow's demons. History will absolve us and condemn them. ~ Paul Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  



{ ASACP_CREDITS }
{ ASACP_CREDITS }
{ ASACP_CREDITS } Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group