Jump to content

Recommended Posts

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Have you a link to said scientific proof please,


How could there be such a link?


In the post-truth world anything goes. I can say 'there is proof that' with no references to authority because authority (in the sense here of specialised fallible knowledge) itself has been deemed untrustworthy. Peddlers of such 'certainty' cannot live with this. The fallibility of knowledge (of all knowledge) is denied by the word 'proof' - thus justifying the post-truth certainty. The word proof is itself the give-away in the error of pop's post. Proof is a potential property derivable from deductive systems (such as mathematics) that cannot be sustained as a totality for ANY system either in completeness or consistency (G?del). It has nothing to do with the fallible empirically oriented messy organisational languages of science - these are always open to being overthrown BECAUSE they are science (open to new readings of the empirical) rather than post-truth verbiage in which 'facts' are 'known' (see for example Mary Hesse, but really any philosopher of science currently recognised in the academy as a philosopher).

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Have you a link to said scientific proof

> please,

>

> How could there be such a link?

>

> In the post-truth world anything goes. I can say

> 'there is proof that' with no references to

> authority because authority (in the sense here of

> specialised fallible knowledge) itself has been

> deemed untrustworthy. Peddlers of such 'certainty'

> cannot live with this. The fallibility of

> knowledge (of all knowledge) is denied by the word

> 'proof' - thus justifying the post-truth

> certainty. The word proof is itself the give-away

> in the error of pop's post. Proof is a potential

> property derivable from deductive systems (such as

> mathematics) that cannot be sustained as a

> totality for ANY system either in completeness or

> consistency (G?del). It has nothing to do with the

> fallible empirically oriented messy organisational

> languages of science - these are always open to

> being overthrown BECAUSE they are science (open to

> new readings of the empirical) rather than

> post-truth verbiage in which 'facts' are 'known'

> (see for example Mary Hesse, but really any

> philosopher of science currently recognised in the

> academy as a philosopher).



Precis:


Everything jaywalker posts is rubbish.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rather than enter into a philosophical discussion

> of what constitutes proof, a peer-reviewed

> scientific paper will do me, I'm a simple man.


but they will (and must) conflict.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Have you a link to said scientific proof please,

> and more appositely to proof that streets with

> trees have higher pollution levels in parts per

> million than streets without? In a rainforest,

> yes, smoke etc can stay trapped under the canopy.

> We don't have rainforests in London. If air "is

> suppressed at ground level" by trees on streets

> barometric pressure would be higher on streets

> with trees than those without. Which it isn't.




Didn't you read the guardian article I linked to

Here it is again

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/trees-may-increase-air-pollution-on-city-streets


I know ED is the guardian reading capital of the world so it must be the truth.. No?

That report is not evidence, you will note there are an awful lot of "mays" and "coulds." By contrast, a Leicester University study last year found that trees can reduce pedestrian head height levels of pollution by up to 7%. In certain very specialised scenarios (very high traffic flow, tree canopy providing 100% coverage, wind of a specific speed and direction etc) trees can hold pollutants in place - none of these circumstances pertain anywhere in East Dulwich as far as I'm aware. Please note this most important point: trees do not increase air pollution, the pollution is made by cars. Your apparent desire to cut down all the trees on our streets and in our gardens to fight pollution, rather than take measures to reduce the number of cars, would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad and so indicative of a certain all too prevalent mindset.


By the way, trees serve an absolutely vital role as baffles for sound pollution, something about which I believe you feel rather strongly.


Happy Christmas - do you have two place settings for pop and fazer, or do you share the same plate?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37813709 London trees are estimated according to this recent report to provide ?133 million worth of benefits to Londoners, including air pollution removal and carbon sequestration, cooling and reducing the amount of water that flows into our drains.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That report is not evidence, you will note there

> are an awful lot of "mays" and "coulds." By

> contrast, a Leicester University study last year

> found that trees can reduce pedestrian head height

> levels of pollution by up to 7%. In certain very

> specialised scenarios (very high traffic flow,

> tree canopy providing 100% coverage, wind of a

> specific speed and direction etc) trees can hold

> pollutants in place - none of these circumstances

> pertain anywhere in East Dulwich as far as I'm

> aware. Please note this most important point:

> trees do not increase air pollution, the pollution

> is made by cars. Your apparent desire to cut down

> all the trees on our streets and in our gardens to

> fight pollution, rather than take measures to

> reduce the number of cars, would be hilarious if

> it wasn't so sad and so indicative of a certain

> all too prevalent mindset.

>

> By the way, trees serve an absolutely vital role

> as baffles for sound pollution, something about

> which I believe you feel rather strongly.

>

> Happy Christmas - do you have two place settings

> for pop and fazer, or do you share the same plate?


I'm not anti tress ! lol

I'm anti BIG trees in the wrong places.


I've said I'd rather 100's of smaller trees cherry blossom type rather that a few large monster trees which are a problem in many ways.


As for fazer and pop you really are getting silly trying to intimidate / insult / belittle me as per previous attempts very sad.


I hope you have a lovely Christmas enjoy the tree hugging and you tree mental illness where ALL trees are worshiped regardless.


Take care ..

I'm not trying to intimidate, insult or belittle you, I'm just having a good laugh at your expense as it was the funniest thing I saw on here all year (for the uninitiated, pop used to have an account on here as Fazer1973 or some such, then he came on as pop saying "I agree with Fazer" - which might have worked if admin hadn't popped up to say it's not surprising you agree, as you are Fazer!).


Please stop describing people who disagree with you as having a mental illness, it's really not on.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Agreed. Mental illness is not something to joke

> about or to treat lightly.

>

> If pop/fazer does this again, I shall refer

> his/her comments to the Administrator.



We're all mentally ill at some level

ie on the spectrum of insanity

that's standard for most humans


Report me to who ever you like your god you mummy your daddy you administrator your wife child friend or work mates..


If that makes you feel better I'm happy for you ..



If mental illness has become your taboo that is interesting! Why do you see it that way? What makes you think raising it in that way would help those who are at the high end or the spectrum or the rest of humanity?


Or have you simply had a knee jerk PC reaction to my saying an obsession with ALL trees being good is imo a mental illness?



I guess I'm not allowed to say being mad about trees isn't in some way a mental issue ?


Why ?

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not trying to intimidate, insult or belittle

> you, I'm just having a good laugh at your expense

> as it was the funniest thing I saw on here all

> year (for the uninitiated, pop used to have an

> account on here as Fazer1973 or some such, then he

> came on as pop saying "I agree with Fazer" - which

> might have worked if admin hadn't popped up to say

> it's not surprising you agree, as you are

> Fazer!).

>

> Please stop describing people who disagree with

> you as having a mental illness, it's really not

> on.


Ah so your mental illness is having a laugh at other peoples expense.

You are showing the uninitiated you are not really very nice.

As I said much of humanity is mentally at some level or other.

I?m no exception.

If you believe you are an exception then that?s a true sign of it 


Human Sheep following the leader ..


There are some who shout loud about their mad views on trees the ?sheep? follow and become part of the madness. Just like the acceptance of pollution noise etc.


This thread is about a HUGE tree which is blocking a pavement and restricting peoples? ability to use the pavement.


In any sane world people of any logic would cut the bloody thing down reinstate the pavement and plant a new smaller variety of tree or tress which are more suited to the location.


But noooooooo we get mental people who think it?s acceptable that a tree takes up 50% of the pavement ..


And other mental people who are talking about another time on another thread .. for some weird purpose which can maybe only be explained by some form of craziness?



Hilarious

I know it's now a very peculiar opinion to think a pavement should be wide enough to be a pavement prior to being reported to admin I thought pavements should be for walking on.


I'm so very weird ..


I now realise thanks to the clever people in this thread that trees should be everywhere


Bring on the middle of the road trees and the motorway middle slow and fast lane trees


I was so silly ...


Admin may have reason to ban me for my crazy views on mental illness and trees.

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...