Friday 29th of March 2024

nothing but the truth...

turmpthturmpth

In the West, when we’re in a court of law, we are made to swear to tell the truth, on a bible. The bible is the least truthful of all books ever written, but we “believe” it is nothing but the truth. It feels like a traditional joke, as if we were avoiding hell by swearing truthfulness on a book of lies. 

 

The bible is full of lies — elegant lies. They explain "everything" with "infinite error", to reiterate the words of Bertolt Brecht… 

 

It would be better for an atheist to swear to tell the truth on a work by Albert Camus, by Dostoyevsky or by Joyce James.

 

I do not know what accused people swear upon what in a Muslim country court of law. The Koran? I will have to check but I don’t care. I won’t assume that there is nothing to swear upon  but it’s important — as the accused is often found guilty of blasphemy and of atheism, contrary to the dictum of what you should believe in. Depending on the case, death or prison for life will be the sentence. For a thief, his hand might be chopped off. Ruthless, idiotic and barbaric treatment for not believing in a lie... 

 

This is where we have to deeply think about the women in the Muslim world. apart from a few cases, they are often treated like second class subordinate slaves to men. The worse cases being in Afghanistan that we abandoned without securing safety for educated women, now treated worse than dirt, with less respect than a camel would get.

 

Religions are not the truth. They are travesty of reality. In most circumstances, religions are DANGEROUS displacement of understanding.

 

Trump used religion as a prop to catch flies (voters). We don’t know what he really believes in (money?). Is money the truth? Meanwhile Trump is a scientific ignoramus. Scientists had to protest and march in the streets of AMERICA and throughout the world to protect their visions against trump’s deranged mind. When Trump dismissed the meteorologist in regard to the prediction of the path of a hurricane, scientist knew he was an imbecile, though many meteorologists are not clued about global warming and resist understanding the caper. We live in a fish-bowl of fools.

 

Joe Biden “believes” in Christ and uses sciences as a prop to protect his misunderstandings while his mind vanishes like a fluffy cloud. Hard to know whom of the two presidents is more deceptive. But with Biden, the scientists got more money to do their gigs and “nature got better protection”. Trump had rescinded on the protection of nature by allowing digging and drilling in national park and such. Meanwhile, some of nature isn’t fully protected under Biden — and, though the scientists have been quietened, the greenies are not. 

 

As we’ve mentioned many times on this site, the universe would not exist unless there were changes to its make up. Many changes of status. For our little relative universe, planet Earth, we have had and have an influence on the changes and the speed of these changes. Most of the changes, we have enforced on nature are MACRO such as deforestation and climate change. Can we see these and can we reverse the changes that are evolving into dangerous set ups? Can democracy be our instrument of controlling the dangers? 

 

----------

 

Exponential increases in the human population and its activities are accelerating global changes, from the climate to land use to loss of species. The rise in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, mainly CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels, is the most well-known driver of global change (1).

 

Emission of greenhouse gases, which also include methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), are stoking global warming as well as more frequent and extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods. Land use and pollution also have major impacts on Earth’s future (1). Among these ongoing anthropogenic changes, the biospheric nutrient imbalance between nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) is less known and deserves more attention.

 

In 2003, a pioneering study by Sterner and Elser reported that the aquatic N/P ratio determined the community structure and function of plankton in lakes (2). When the concentrations of both N and P are not limited, the rate of protein synthesis by plankton depends mostly on the amount of P-rich RNA that the organisms produce and is therefore negatively correlated with the cellular N/P ratio. Thus, lower N/P ratios are associated with faster protein synthesis and higher growth rates of plankton (2). 

 

This negative correlation has multiple ecological consequences for the structure and functioning of ecosystems, as has been reported in all types of ecosystems.

 

Human activities have substantially altered this N/P ratio in water, soils, and organisms over the past five decades (3). The much faster increase of anthropogenic inputs of reactive N to the biosphere than inputs of P has led to a global increase in the N/P ratio. The main anthropogenic sources of reactive N include the many kinds of nitrogen oxides from burning fossil fuels, the planting of N-fixing crops, and the use of N-rich fertilizers as well as their runoff into waterways. 

 

Although there are also human activities that have increased the amount of P in soils and waters—for example, from the application of P-rich fertilizers and detergents—the overall increase in the input of P is dwarfed by that of N. This increase in both N and P has led to eutrophication (excess of nutrients) of waters and soil. Some countries have implemented water-treatment strategies to decrease N and P concentrations. 

 

However, the technology used by these water-treatment plants retains more P than N and therefore increases the N/P ratio as an unintended consequence (4). The global N/P ratio of anthropogenic inputs has increased from about 19:1 in molar basis in the 1980s to 30:1 in 2020 (3). The interactions of these N/P ratios in water, soil, and organisms with drivers of global change, such as warming and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, further increase the N/P ratio in some biomes (5).

 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl4827

 

------

 

We try hard to understand all this, but sciences can also be used and manipulated by politicians — and by private enterprises — in ways that debase sciences into no more than profit-making ventures. This is not new and does not mean the sciences are incorrect but they can be manipulated, especially in the statistical domain.

 

Since we invented the wheel, since Pythagoras and since Isaac Newton expressed a clever calculus about gravity, sciences have been used to “improve the human condition” with unfortunate side-effects, such as developing better weapons to kill one another. 

 

And it seems that democracy has not improved this situation, through the terrifying potential of the new weapons has come to, in the process we call MAD. The dork we elect as representatives are more like deadly clowns in a dangerous circus than clever people. Most of these clowns come from the "theatre of the law", where swearing on the bible to tell the truth is essential, and lying is the second essential activity as we have no idea what the truth is. At least we now elect our own clowns. Up to just a bit more than a century ago, our head-clowns, the royals, had been chosen by god. Ludicrous? Hey... this was the way things worked. We slaved and they nobly sent us to war... 

 

Sciences do not give us infinite wisdom. This is the second part of Bertolt Brecht’s premise. 

 

Sciences are processes of investigations and experiments in order to discover the reality of our WIR… WIR is a German pronoun which encompasses all of us, individually and together, and with our spacial reality. 

 

Unfortunately, many scientists and research lab operate on profit-making and are cagey or exclusive about their “discovery”. They don’t share well. This irked Einstein… As well in modern medicine, some of these “discoveries” are relative to statistical assessments. 

 

For example we will be told that this first shot of vaccine will protect you against Covid-19 with a 60 per cent probability of effectiveness. This is iffy knowledge that demands hefty studies of control group versus tested groups. In the previous two years of infection, did we have time to do these tests properly and impartially without fudging? Not really, it seems we have had a few shots in the dark… With “protection" increasing to 80 per cent with a second shot, we have to admit that the 60 and 80 per cent figures are not very precise. They could have been rounded off from say 62.9 and 79.7 per cent in studies of too small control group versus tested groups, in which the statistically unfortunates may have died... Who knows. But we know that diseases can evolve, especially the SARS viruses. So now we need a third vaccine shot to increase our resistance to the new variants… Even studies in Israel have demanded a fourth shot for better protection. And overall, we could be unlucky enough to fall between the statistical cracks. We will now need a yearly “vaccination”... like our daily bread.

 

So sciences are not fool-proof but they are our best shot at living longer and happier, until we loose our marbles for living longer, entering homes for the demented age-care where “they” keep you alive like a leafless carrot, for as long as possible, for profit.

 

This comes back to pure scientific research. Money, politics and sciences can make real bad bedfellows, because politics are more often than not about deception — or at least fudge. Our media is also an instrument of such political deception, a deception which usd to be owned by religions beforehand — preaching from the pulpits. (Note: religion is still political sauce dished out from the minarets).

 

This is where we need to express our democratic rights with the best possible outcomes. In Australia, ScoMo is bad on this level (— an all other levels). For example we were told by a SMH journalist that he had spent a lot of time last year "studying global warming”… One should think that this would be excellent. By the way he got out of the COP26, one has to suspect he only studied ways to fudge idiotic political solutions to the problem and appear knowledgeable, while basically knowing crap. He is an evangelical dummy-dumb-boy, for kris-sake!

 

His government of Liberals (CONservatives) damaged the CSIRO and general research as much as they could get away with, with a generally friendly supportive media. 

 

Apart from lovely old and new buildings, our universities have turned into poor ideological grounds where humanities have taken a hit. Pure sciences more or less survive in universities because of private grants which are getting scarcer because of Covid. We live at a time when universities should be the pointy end of research for the future. They are so tattered, they barely can look at the past for inspiration.

 

Meanwhile, some scientists equate sciences with the truth… and this is a problem. Sciences provide relative knowledge and we should be prepared not to define “the truth”, except in an inquisitive sense.

 

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

 

Truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. It is also one of the largest. Truth has been a topic of discussion in its own right for thousands of years. Moreover, a huge variety of issues in philosophy relate to truth, either by relying on theses about truth, or implying theses about truth.

It would be impossible to survey all there is to say about truth in any coherent way. Instead, this essay will concentrate on the main themes in the study of truth in the contemporary philosophical literature. It will attempt to survey the key problems and theories of current interest, and show how they relate to one-another. A number of other entries investigate many of these topics in greater depth. Generally, discussion of the principal arguments is left to them. The goal of this essay is only to provide an overview of the current Theories. Many of the papers mentioned in this essay can be found in the anthologies edited by Blackburn and Simmons (1999) and Lynch (2001b). There are a number of book-length surveys of the topics discussed here, including Burgess and Burgess (2011), Kirkham (1992), and Künne (2003). Also, a number of the topics discussed here, and many further ones, are surveyed at more length in papers in Glanzberg (2018).

The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. But this simple statement masks a great deal of controversy. Whether there is a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the theory of truth. We will see a number of distinct ways of answering these questions.

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

 

 

Scientific truth is based on facts. Philosophy, religion, feelings, and prejudice have nothing to do with science. Only facts matter. Verified, reproducible facts are the bedrock of scientific truth. The facts are used to construct theories which describe the detailed relations among large numbers of facts and their origin from common roots. Each element of a theory corresponds to some part of nature and, in this sense, scientific theories describe nature.

 

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/ 

 

All physical events take place in time and space, but the precise nature of time and space has been mysterious and generally misunderstood until Einstein. Newton believed that both time and space are self evident and absolute, being everywhere and always the same. Einstein's theory of relativity showed that this was not the case, both time and space being dependant on the state of motion. For moving objects, distance contracts and time slows down. An important consequence of this is that the laws of electrodynamics and the laws of mechanics change in the same way for moving bodies. These ideas were so counter intuitive and controversial that they are still being discussed today, a century after they were developed. The twin paradox, for example, states that when a twin traveling far out into space returns to earth, he will be much younger than his stay-at-home brother.

 

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/

 

I know the feeling of getting older…

 

 

Humans always look for reasons. From earliest childhood, our question is always ‘Why’. Whenever an answer is found, we immediately ask ‘why is this the answer’? Thus, things fall because of gravity, gravity is the result of a universal inverse square law, this is the result of space being warped by mass. This leads us to ask: why does mass bend space? There is an infinite regression of causality. Science does not really address this question. It merely describes what happens in a coherent, unified way.

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/

 

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

 

Science merely describes what happens in a coherent, unified way….  Most times. 

 

Religious beliefs are totally incoherent and make no sense — except by the sheer repeat of the nonsense through a clever theatrical ritual: not a pip of reality in religions. At least with sciences we’ve got a chance to moderate our general stupidity — but it’s not evident, as sciences at the pointy end are very complicated. BUT THEY WORK. We enjoy our crappy chats on the phone because of rigorously applied sciences — not because god told us to call heaven.

 

In general, sciences try to avoid deception. Deception, rather than the truth, should have been one of the central subjects in philosophy, because according to dumb Gus, deception has been our best tool of survival against the lousy deal we got from nature. And we use deception against each others, as well. Politics is the game of managing deceptions in regard to our mercantile ventures which encompass about 99.9 per cent of our awake activities. The price of fish so to speak versus “the truth”. You know... the “market”… Even knowing the weather is related to our activities. Professor of meteorology Trump can tell us a few things or none...

 

 

On Wednesday, as Americans along the East Coast warily watched the progress of Hurricane Dorian, observers across the country noted something else with alarm.

 

When President Trump held up a map of Hurricane Dorian’s projected path, it included a Sharpie-drawn extension to show the storm hitting Alabama — an apparent attempt to defend an incorrect tweet he posted on Sunday, which claimed that Alabama was one of the states in the path of the storm. In fact, the National Hurricane Center did not, at any point, include Alabama in its forecast for where Dorian would fall. (Alabama did appear on a map of the probability of tropical storm conditions, but with low likelihood of actually seeing those conditions, according to the Washington Post.)

 

https://time.com/5670168/trump-hurricane-map-alabama-weather-law/

 

 

Note: It is a violation of federal law to falsify a National Weather Service forecast and pass it off as official, as President Trump did here. But so what? 

 

-------

 

Public awareness of science (PAwS), public understanding of science (PUS), or more recently, public engagement with science and technology (PEST) are terms relating to the awareness, attitudes, behaviors, opinions, and activities that comprise the relations between the general public or lay society as a whole to scientific knowledge and organization. 

 

It is a comparatively new approach to the task of exploring the multitude of relations and linkages science, technology, and innovation have among the general public.[1] While early work in the discipline focused on increasing or augmenting the public's knowledge of scientific topics, in line with the information deficit model of science communication, the deficit model has largely been abandoned by science communication researchers. 

 

Instead, there is an increasing emphasis on understanding how the public chooses to use scientific knowledge and on the development of interfaces to mediate between expert and lay understandings of an issue.[example needed] Newer frameworks of communicating science include the dialogue and the participation models.[2] The dialogue model aims to create spaces for conversations between scientists and non-scientists to occur while the participation model aims to include non-scientists in the process of science.

 

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

 

———————————

 

Scientific knowledge, of course, should be at the core of our democratic choices, influencing our economic models. There is an economic (humanities) study that tells us that “our kids” earn and will earn less than their parents. This is evident across the spectrum of wealth. For example, Bill Gates’ progeny (if he has any) will make far less money than he ever did. The decline of descendants’ wealth started in the 1940s and has become endemic. The price of housing is not helping either. Meanwhile, the churches are being depleted, apart from some “happy-clappy ones” that get away with flaunting the “scientific/political" regulations of distancing and mask wearing…

 

Where to from here? 

 

On this site, we’ve tried to inform about the need for scientific knowledge in our democracies and the need to reject the “believers” of religious lies. ScoMo should have been on his arse a long time ago, following these criteria. But things are never so simple. There are too many people still who prefer(?) the infinite error to the relative wisdom of sciences — including a few mad scientists…

 

Are we screwed?

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...

NOTE to students...

Note to students: learning something might interfere with your general ignorance... especially if you are woke or a religious believer...

 

Students are being warned of ‘explicit material’ awaiting them in a novel that, ironically, describes the dangers of censorship

The University of Northampton has issued a harsh warning over potentially “offensive and upsetting” material contained in the famous dystopia by George Orwell, ‘1984.’

The novel, which describes the dangers of totalitarian rule and censorship, is now red-flagged, as it addresses “challenging issues related to violence, gender, sexuality, class, race, abuses, sexual abuse, political ideas and offensive language.”

The warning, issued to students taking a module called ‘Identity Under Construction,’ became public following a Freedom of Information request by The Mail on Sunday.

The news raised eyebrows among social media users, with one saying that Orwell is “grave turning” and another reacting with an emotional “Get me off this planet. I can't deal.”

“There’s something very Big Brother about it,” Conservative MP Andre Bridgen commented on Twitter.

 

“If a trigger warning prevents even one student from reading 1984, the University of Northampton has utterly failed in its mission. This book, more than any, should be read widely at the moment,” an Australian professor Andrew Timming noted.

However, Orwell’s classic novel is not the only one students at Northampton should beware of, according to the university’s management. Samuel Beckett’s play ‘Endgame,’ the graphic novel ‘V For Vendetta’ by Alan Moore and David Lloyd and Jeanette Winterson’s ‘Sexing The Cherry’ have also been listed by the university as “offensive and upsetting.”

Apparently, there are also some problems with books taught in other modules of Northampton’s English degree course as well. Mark Haddon’s 2003 novel ‘The Curious Incident Of The Dog In The Night-Time,’ for example, might be upsetting for readers, as it includes the “death of an animal, ableism and disability and offensive language”, the warning explains.

The educational institution, currently ranked 108 out of 132 UK universities in the 2022 edition of The Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide, has issued a statement to defend its warnings. As quoted by The Daily Mail, Northampton says that “while it is not university policy, we may warn students of content in relation to violence, sexual violence, domestic abuse and suicide” because “some texts might be challenging for some students.”

 

 

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/546885-orwell-books-warnings-university/

 

LET'S LEARN... NOTHING...

 

Read from top.

 

The University of Northampton is a public university based in Northampton, Northamptonshire, England. It was formed in 1999 by the amalgamation of a number of training colleges, and gained full university status as the University of Northampton in 2005.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!