Skip to main content
Topic: General Discussions (Read 108876 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #135
What a farken disgrace this is. This piece of subhuman filth wants to play the racial disadvantage card, it makes me sick to the core. They should just put a bullet between his eyes. Piece of garbage I hope you rot in hell.

From the HS:
The “Indigenous disadvantage” of killer Codey Herrmann will form the centre of defence submissions as they fight the state’s top prosecutor’s bid to lock him up for longer.

Director of Public Prosecutions Kerri Judd QC argues the 36-year sentence handed down to Aiia Maasarwe’s murderer was “manifestly inadequate”.

A five-judge bench will hear the appeal in March.

Court of Appeal president Chris Maxwell said the court would need more information regarding mitigating factors and moral culpability to understand Herrmann’s “appalling” crime.



That hasn’t gone down well with Aboriginal communities.  A lot of Aboriginal folk are saying that they have had similar life experiences and don’t feel at all inclined to rape and murder helpless young women.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: General Discussions

Reply #136
That hasn’t gone down well with Aboriginal communities.  A lot of Aboriginal folk are saying that they have had similar life experiences and don’t feel at all inclined to rape and murder helpless young women.
Perhaps we should hand him over to his elders to deal with him.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: General Discussions

Reply #137
I fear politics is getting in the way of science yet again, in this case the origins of humanity in Australia, research about which is suffering from underfunding and neglect because of it being unfashionable in political circles.

For some time it's been hypothesised from evidence uncovered that the people we refer to as 1st Nations were not actually the countries original inhabitants. There is significant evidence in both rock art as well as recent DNA analysis that shows modern 1st Nations people were not related to those who were already here beyond a more recent period of population expansion. Yet mentioning this, discussing it in official circles, is career suicide at the moment due to the political environment.

I know some right-wing types picked up on those reports for their own motives and leverage, but the pursuit of truth should not be tailored to suit human politics, does it really make any difference if the research continues unhindered?
The Force Awakens!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #138
I fear politics is getting in the way of science yet again, in this case the origins of humanity in Australia, research about which is suffering from underfunding and neglect because of it being unfashionable in political circles.

For some time it's been hypothesised from evidence uncovered that the people we refer to as 1st Nations were not actually the countries original inhabitants. There is significant evidence in both rock art as well as recent DNA analysis that shows modern 1st Nations people were not related to those who were already here beyond a more recent period of population expansion. Yet mentioning this, discussing it in official circles, is career suicide at the moment due to the political environment.

I know some right-wing types picked up on those reports for their own motives and leverage, but the pursuit of truth should not be tailored to suit human politics, does it really make any difference if the research continues unhindered?

This is from 2015, so perhaps not quite cutting edge :

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-might-there-have-been-people-in-australia-prior-to-aboriginal-people-43911

We can only go based on what we know, and for now, any suggestions regarding pre Aboriginal people are speculative and awaiting further evidence. The arguments raised by that dingbat Leyonhjelm are dodgy, but that comes as little surprise.


Re: General Discussions

Reply #140
From 2016 :

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-06-07/dna-confirms-aboriginal-people-as-the-first-australians/7481360

From 2018, not quite on topic, but close :

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/when-did-aboriginal-people-first-arrive-australia
Yes, what we read are two sides of a debate about an investigation.

Having that debate about the investigation isn't my issue, my concern is that one side is politically ensuring the investigation and debate only goes in one direction. They are inhibiting or denying the right to ask the question. Shouldn't the truth be all we care about?

You would have also found those invested in the "Out of Africa" hypothesis now heavily defending that in the face of the 65K year data being disclosed now. It's politically unsavoury, because it affects so many histories, and also because some tout it for political purposes. But that 65K data is built on the same reliable methods as the counterargument, it's not a case of one technique being superior or another wrong. Much of the counterargument at this stage is that 65K isn't correct because we have already reported it as 50K, and they follow up comment is therefore I doubt 65K can be true!

I've sensed in this debate that below is the bigger issue, which puts the recent minority Australian research trying to hold sway against a tsunami of tenured specialists who have formed a "consensus";
Quote
The original study by Dr Adcock and his co-workers was broadly publicised internationally not only because it suggested there were humans in Australia before Aboriginal people but because it challenged a single African origin for all modern humans.
This bit in bold is looking a bit if not very shaky for the long term, the latest discoveries which seem to be surfacing with increasing frequency really suggest many pathways to modern human, but it's staunchly denied by some. The professors will eventually be made redundant by their students, that is when the refreshed data becomes mainstream.

So I weigh all this in the context of academic tenure as well, which is a double edged sword, so there is considerable resistance to new information that sometimes survives or can also make a career's worth of work redundant. That is a pretty fair "why risk it" motivation!

If 65K is true, it won't be the last time modern science built on 19th century natural-philosophy turns out to be full of bogus assumptions. True science is never right, it just gets closer to being correct with every validated revision.
The Force Awakens!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #141
Science is sitting pretty sweet if you ask me. I accept that as a way of studying the physical world around us, it is the best we have. But it must be pretty nice to be in a position where you can be incorrect (which in essence is what you are saying), yet still have enormous prestige, but also reserve the right to change your mind when something better comes along. I'm being a little mischievous here, but hopefully you can see my point.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #142
https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution\



Quote
Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species.

I think Science finds new things to disagree about all the time, and whenever anyone wants to argue that point with me, I point to three points in time.

Erastothanes mapped the circumference of the earth using mathematics and shadows in 240 B.C.  Despite this knowledge, Galileo Galilei was labelled heretic as late as the 1600's A.D. for insinutating that the earth was round not flat, and despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary, we have flat earthers in existence today, and if it suited certain political agendas, that would be the truth of the world.

ERGO, Scientific interpretation based on whats common shouldn't be trusted, and the data should be studied individually for people to make up their own minds.  The more someone tells me something is true, the less likely I am to believe it. 


@PaulP , I think the above speaks for what you have stated!!!
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #143
If the average 2020 student walked into a Science classroom when I went to school (1960s) armed with the knowledge of today and started sprouting some of his theories and facts the teacher would probably kick them out (after giving them 6 cuts of the cane for being a smart-arse prick). ;)  ;D  ;D

Re: General Discussions

Reply #144
If the average 2020 student walked into a Science classroom when I went to school (1960s) armed with the knowledge of today and started sprouting some of his theories and facts the teacher would probably kick them out (after giving them 6 cuts of the cane for being a smart-arse prick). ;)  ;D  ;D
Instead today, the student gives the teacher 6 punches in the head and a kick up the ass.
2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: General Discussions

Reply #145
Science is sitting pretty sweet if you ask me. I accept that as a way of studying the physical world around us, it is the best we have. But it must be pretty nice to be in a position where you can be incorrect (which in essence is what you are saying), yet still have enormous prestige, but also reserve the right to change your mind when something better comes along. I'm being a little mischievous here, but hopefully you can see my point.
But obviously you can't be blatantly deceptive or stupidly in error, and you can't be denialist in the Trump style, of course you might only know you were wrong long after enough new knowledge is uncovered.

Science is accepting new knowledge has some foundational right to challenge your ideas, science is not denying that right dogmatically or refusing to even investigate the questions.

 You have the right to accept new science and also defend your own science, you do not have the right to deny new science by political means.
The Force Awakens!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #146
But obviously you can't be blatantly deceptive or stupidly in error, and you can't be denialist in the Trump style, of course you might only know you were wrong long after enough new knowledge is uncovered.

Science is accepting new knowledge has some foundational right to challenge your ideas, science is not denying that right dogmatically or refusing to even investigate the questions.

 You have the right to accept new science and also defend your own science, you do not have the right to deny new science by political means.

Yes, I agree, and all important points.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #147
Yes, I agree, and all important points.
They are still trying to disprove Einstein to this day, he's only right for as long as they fail.

One day Einstein may well be consigned to the same fate as Newton, having delivered us a nice quaint approximation, that is close enough to right in 99.9% of daily cases.
The Force Awakens!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #148
You have the right to accept new science and also defend your own science, you do not have the right to deny new science by political means.

Tell that to Trump.
Deny, deny, deny and cut funding to anyone who proves he is wrong.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #149
They are still trying to disprove Einstein to this day, he's only right for as long as they fail!

Einstein wasn't always right.

He was wrong.....at least once.

What he was wrong about was when he said a statement he made was incorrect (Essentially about the universe expanding). He was actually correct to begin with. His doubting of himself was what he was wrong about.