Carlton Supporters Club

Best wishes for Christmas, Hanukkah, Yule, Hogmanay, Modraniht, the solstice, Saturnalia, Pancha Ganapati or whatever else you choose to celebrate at this time of year!

Gaano kalaki ang pinagmulan ng malaking data na ito? Magkano ang data na maaari kong makuha, dahil pinaghihinalaan ko na ang malaking nilalaman na ito ay tinanggal sa database?

I think Rees is smart enough and familiar enough with Sheldrake, both on a personal and professional level, to know that Sheldrake is a proponent of the "omnipotent, intelligent energy" God. I'm sure Rees knew exactly where Rupee was coming from.

why do you think it wasn’t investigated ?
The answer is that it was investigated but without a satisfactory conclusion. The models keep building upon the previous editions to explain the observed world.

Sheldrake talks about a chat he had with Lord Rees (aka Martin Rees, the current Astronomer Royal) regarding the multiverse. As an aside, most western world cosmologists now believe in the multiverse, for which there is no evidence. Anyway, Sheldrake made the point that this was a good example of Ockham's Razor, and that the science community was making a rod for its own back, by creating an infinite number of entities that it cannot and may never be able to explain. Rees said something like "wellI agree it's a bit of a problem, but this way, we can get rid of God !" Sheldrake then asked "so you would prefer to have quadrillions of unexplained universes to God ?" To which Rees replied "yes, it's much better, it's more scientific."

And there you have it.

That’s philosophy Paul.
Science is observation and measurement and yes, even probabilities (a lesser but still important science)

His work has nothing to do with invalidating science - his work has to do with simultaneously getting materialist science to understand its limits and also to get materialist science to accept other valid ways of looking at the world, that lie outside its comfort zone.

Science is a human institution and a human creation like a lot of other things, and is therefore enmeshed in group dynamics, politics, peer group pressure, institutionalized bias etc., the same as any other human endeavour. To believe otherwise is IMO pure folly.

The term pseudoscience is absolutely intended as a negative slur, as though any information presented as such is the work of cranks, snake oil salesmen etc. It never occurs to materialist science that there may in fact be a limitation on their own methods of identification, measurement etc. that may preclude some very worthwhile aspects of knowledge from serious and worthwhile consideration. Some of the best aspects of being on this planet cannot be measured, they can only be lived and experienced.

It's interesting how followers of a dogma accuse science of being dogmatic, it seems impossible for many to separate their need for belief from scientific observation.

There is a general societal failure to understand the meaning of hypothesis and theory in a scientific context. Claiming that a scientific hypothesis or theory is about faith or belief is an error made from a dogmatic perspective, hypothesis built on faith would be examples of pseudoscience unproven or proven to be untestable or unmeasurable.

In science a hypothesis only becomes theory when the probability of it being true is very high, always after measurement and testing.

In dogma and in general society theory is widely misused, an idea which would more correctly be described as a claim without supporting evidence is frequently labeled a theory. It requires some faith or belief.

Science is not a belief system, belief has no part of science, and confidence in a scientific hypothesis is not about faith. An assertion can be made in science(Asking a question), choosing the assertion is not faith or belief base, because by default you must then test all cases supporting and counter to your assertion. In science an hypothesis is nothing more than a starting point, a starting point that may be based on some previous evidence but not necessarily, and a valid result in science can be either negative and positive.

If it is not measurable, testable and repeatable then it is not science, it is then a matter of faith. Phenomena that cannot be measured and tested has a high probability of not being real.

New Age has a horrendous history of misappropriation of terms like science, hypothesis and proof because many ideas proselytized are deliberately fashioned to be impossible to prove or disprove. By definition you might claim you cannot prove a negative result, in this regard those New Age ideas are nothing more than philosophical toys. Language gymnastics, not real science. We conduct this debate here in English, in other languages the terms might not even exists in which we can frame some of these pseudoscience issues, yet science's hypothesis, measurement and testing spans any language, the scientific method is not dependent on belief, faith, perspective or language.

Exactly why attacking religion is wrong.  You want to attack the "CLERGY" of SPECIFIC religions and not religion itself.  As an orthodox christian, who donates what I wish, and receives nothing but spirituality in return, I resent anyone lumping religion into one category.  My local priest is a good family man, as the Greek Orthodox Church allows priests to be married and have their own church.  Our priest visits our family and knows and remembers everyone even though he is well into his 70's.  Where people use dogma to their own end, all they show you is how evil people can be.

Organised religion has evolved based on anthropocentrism, dualism and patriarchy.  The spirituality that underlies the various religions is actually pretty good IMO.

People like Kate Jenkins are absolutely in a position to have more knowledge on these things than the average Joe.

You can take virtually any crime, be it white collar, blue collar, virtually any type of negative, anti social behaviour, and men will outnumber women as perpetrators, most of the time by significant margins. The article below is simply the tip of the information iceberg.

My personal view is that the big problem is that current model(s) of masculinity are extremely toxic and serve both men and women very poorly. But that's another topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime

@C4E

My late wife had two such operations performed a few years ago now by a very experienced surgeon who I believe is now retired. Her experiences were very positive in each case as she had severe arthritis which caused her a lot of pain and reduced her mobility significantly. These replacements changed her life and I am so pleased she got them so that she could better enjoy her remaining years. Some doctors advise patients to put it off as long as possible since they are only good for a limited time - my wife ignored that advice and in her case it paid off I guess.

So I would say yes but maybe the choice of surgeon is critical?