root

fabfor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @root. The vitriol I'll leave with you but I'll > take awesome every time. I thank you for that. Not vitriol ... pity and disdain maybe ... after years of dealing with stupid I don't have it in me to suffer fools gladly

fabfor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just for the record, not one but 10+ scientific > studies that prove consciousness can alter our > material world: > > http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/08/10- > scientific-studies-that-prove-consciousness-can-al > ter-our-physical-material-world/ > > I find the first one particularly shocking. Awesome yes, intriguing yes, shocking ... not really. Observation does not mean a person looking at something. You can take the human or the cat out of the experiment and you'd still get the same. You can get an education in physics and mathematics and help understand the reality or take a more comforting short cut and just make sh*t up. The latter is the fascinating world of the pseudoscience which includes the ghost hunters, the homeopaths of Lordship Lane and the chichi reiki quacks of east dulwich.

Eloquently correct, in part. The original post was indeed specifically about experiences concerning one particular school. Said school happens to be a faith school, founded in no small part in dogma. So while some may see the question as an isolated concern I see it as opening a can of worms. Now if questionings of faith and their role in state are above public discussion then we have an even bigger problem.

Mr Biscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ... > but of Cabrini. I would encourage parents to be > open minded and to visit the school without > prejudice. As a person who values observation, evidence and reason I also do not agree with faith schools ... as a principle. However, I do not see shunning faith schools on their theological affiliation as prejudice but rather because faith schools in essence are a contradiction. We tend as a society to be very accepting and downright apologetic of others' rights to believe and practice the hocus pocus but would we be as open minded, say, to allow an educational program on planetary science and cosmology to be run by a sect of flat earthers?

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry to be negative but I cannot ignore this > thread.I have taught in faith schools off and on > for 20 years including this school. It has always > been an eye-opener and a surprise to me how they > let the pupils get away with being anti-gay > (secondary pupils) and even anti- people of no > faith. If students ask me if I am religious I tell > them I'm not and in faith schools they are shocked > that I got a job there. If you want your child to > be brain-washed by all means go ahead but 'pray' > they are not gay or they will really suffer. Also > in more recent years the methods used to > 'brainwash' are becoming more insidious. You need > to be on your guard I'm afraid. Reading this has made me happy. Thank you.

I've stayed at the Hotel Carol a few times over the past years. It's basic, clean, and whilst not in the city center it's just a few minutues on foot from Českomoravsk? in Praha 9. That's next to Galerie Harfa an 'upmarketish' shopping mall.

Peckhampam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Looking at ratings on NHS choices DMC gets one > star out of 5 and has 138 ratings. The Gardens > get 3. The only other surgery on that page which > gets only one star is based on only 4 ratings. I > think a lot of people are very upset. I would not recommend the gardens to anyone. Rude and patronising reception. Was only with the practice for 48 hours and then transferred to another surgery. Can't comment on GPs as never got to see one. The nurse was nice though. My NHS review: http://www.nhs.uk/Services/GP/ReviewsAndRatings/DefaultView.aspx?id=38469&SortType=1#cmnt289097

fabfor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there anybody there?

Sod the bridge .... Has anyone else watched Salamander with great expectations and was left rather disappointed? So spectacularly bad it could have been imported from the US.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > root Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think what we need to fully understand before > we come up with an answer is what we are asking in > the first place? > > This is the problem....if we're asking: "is > something supernatural behind this", then we are > looking for ontological/metaphysical > explanations...which are equally valid but NOT > scientific. If we are asking: "is something > natural behind this", then we need to come up with > a scientific theory to test that can be replicated > and verified by other scientists. You mean make stuff up and expect your beliefs to be taken seriously and respected? > > root Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What is a God? > > Depends on your definition, but again science > probably not the right answer. Unless you believe > God to be a natural phenomenon obv. You mean more made up stuff that is expected to be taken seriously and treated with respect?

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By it's very definition paranormal activity lies > outside the laws of science. Why is there this > delusion that science will explain the > supernatural? Indeed. If something by definition operates outside the laws of science (i.e. nature) then it cannot have any observable effect on reality in which case it's existence is irrelevant. > > Unless Sheldrake or anyone else can prove natural > laws are operating behind this stuff then science > will never provide an answer for it because > science requires empirical evidence of phenomenon > occurring within natural laws. I think what we need to fully understand before we come up with an answer is what we are asking in the first place? > > Would you expect maths to answer questions about > God, physics to answer questions on religion? It's > daft, stop it. What is a God?

fabfor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Very lucrative;it's certainly increased Randi's > fame. BTW, only the famous can apply. > And this is > interesting:http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/jam > es-randi-a-conjurer-attempts-to-debunk-research-on > -animals > > I'm sceptical.... very interesting as is the 'banned' ted talk. Maybe you would like to see what Ted actually said: http://www.ted.com/conversations/16894/rupert_sheldrake_s_tedx_talk.html Always telling when you merit your own page on rationalwiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

Just in case someone thinks they're onto something: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

It was a good ending but was hoping it wouldn't end that way. AS good as season #1 in my books.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No hysterics here, my decision to not vaccinate > was before wakefield, as i've said. Taking into > account the > fact you believe pharmys to be "dodgy" you trust > them enough to make an informed decision to > vaccinate. As I've been saying over and over again, yes, there is a need for tighter scrutiny on Pharma but that does not discredit medicine, all the players in healthcare, and the overwhelming body of evidence we have for tried and tested vaccine schedules like adopted here in the UK. While I always welcome health scepticism I fail to see how that translates to blind acceptance of the rather obtuse links you have posted throughout this thread. On a side note, do you feel the same about other treatments as you feel about vaccines? I wish you all the best never to ever need any medical assistance. Some of us are not so fortunate. I wouldn't know where I'd be today without some drugs, including ones with some scary side effects but at the time the benefits outweighed the risks and collateral damage. > I find it very strange you would see me running > around as a headless chicken,because I chose not > to vaccinate. > I do hold my hands up to going off on different > tangents, I find it difficult to type(phone) in > time with my thoughts. O_o > > What worries me most about many of these posts is > the hysterics of the herd mentality, it encourages > people to > believe there should be no choice, regardless of > these "dodgy" pharmys. The word 'choice' is an easy sell. Woo like 'informed decision', 'taking ownership of your health', blah blay, yada, yada. Your choice here affects others. Do you drive on the left or the right hand side of the road? Do you wee and poo in a bucket and throw it out of the window (as allegedly they used to do in Shakespearean times but not sure) or use a bathroom with proper sanitation? Some things don't just benefit us but are there to protect society as a whole. Why should your misconceptions put the health of others at risk? > > What comes first the chicken the egg or the > allergy. OK this just blew me away ...

TE44, you are going around in hysterics like a headless chicken. There are multiple issues here: 1) Does MMR vaccine cause autism? NO 2) Is herd immunity fact or fiction? Fact 3) Are all vaccines safe and effective? I don't know 4) Are there serious doubts around the effectiveness of Tamilflu? Oh yes 5) Do issues around Tamilflu prove that the MMR jab causes autism? No 6) Is Pharma dodgy? Yes 7) Is Big Pharma the only player in health sciences? No 8) Does there need to be a lot more tranparency and accountability? Yes, see one of the first links on this thread which I posted: 9) Should we do our best to fix Pharma? Yes 10) Should we deal with the unknown and fear of Pharma with a wholesale rejection of science based medicine by embracing alternative natural remedies? (such as reiki, homeopathy, chiropractor, Bach's flowers, feng shui and magic crystals) No, you'd have to be a complete idiot to do so

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The docter that wrot the article is a retired > neurosurgeon. Russel Blaylock may have started in science based medicine but at some point went full retard and it's interesting how you would love to take as gospel the words of a retired neurosurgeon best known for his MSG and Aspartame hysteria but not the scientific body that has gone over the data a million times over given all the hysteria. http://www.skepdic.com/blaylock.html

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Deadly Impossibility Of Herd Immunity Through > Vaccinations.. > > http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the- > deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vacc > ination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/ A nice breakdown of that article ... https://jdc325.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/vaccination-council-misleading/#more-4370 Was only a question of time before Blaylock came up: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell_Blaylock I suppose the next in line would be Burzynski.

"Sent from my overpriced, underpowered, piece of technological bling lovingly built by the closest to slave labour manufacturing you can get in China.".

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Tunnel? That sounds ghastly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tunnel_%28TV_series%29 > > Unless Lily Savage plays Saga :D

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think her character was more believable in the > second series. She was too overdone in the first > one, but seems more settled now. > > Maybe someone did a bit of research on > asbergers/autism this time round! I liked both seasons, along with the original language Wallander, Engrenages and The Killing not as much. Find the whole idea of the bridge being (been?) remade as an Anglo French 'the tunnel' abomination slightly cringeworthy.

Is it about incompetent Dutch hating policemen trying to break up a pedophile ring operating from french fries shops?

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Guys there is no argument, we are just human > beings and we only know what we know and can prove > to date. I'm sure there is a lot more beyond our > understanding, even the ability to which our > understanding can stretch. So all the nay sayers > arrogantly using logic to dismiss another's belief > can carry on doing so. It bothers me not. I still > believe whether you do or not. Of course there's only so much we know. Which is why we take a step back and ask ourselves, "what are we trying to explain?", or "how does this work?" or "how do I solve this problem?". Then we scrach our heads, go through the knowledge we have accumulated to date and make educated guesses here and there and come up with a hypothesis. Then we build models and make predictions and device experiments to test those hypothesis. We test, observe and collect data, refine our methods and analyse all that data we've collected. If our results tally with our hypothesis we throw a party and if not we scratch our heads, see what what we have learnt, revise our hypothesis and start all over. What we don't do is start with an absolute truth and holding onto it when it flies straight into the face of observation and reason. Since I moved to ED I have lost count of how many times I have been stopped by assorted god bothereres all of whom wanted to share their version of absolute truth with me. About how I am a sinner but someone dies for the sins I had yet to commit a couple of millenia ago because he loved me. Others wanted me to go to some metaphisical hospital where they cure illnesses science cannot explain. Others even left pamphlets in my mail saying how evolution and cosmology are just a hoax and the world is just 10000 years old.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do you, like, get through a day TE > Or the night .. in case you forgot about the Ghosts of East Dulwhich thread ...

This came up on my feeds a few hours ago and really cracked me up, in particular the graph for autism vs organic food: http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/01/22/autism-and-vaccines-correlation-is-not-causation/