Here is how KGTV in San Diego covered the story. I don’t know about you, but I see a lot of hope in this. They’re young, they’re innocent, they’re enthused. They see hope in what they have set out to do, and I say that is a good thing.
Oh you can expect that to some extent they’ll be disappointed, but maybe they’ll continue to strive, and in their striving they will save us from ourselves. They want a future and I will support their aim. They are thinking of their children and grandchildren to come, and I support that. Revolution is coming, a revolution we’ve seen before.
This reminds me of the 60s, a time of turmoil, a time of revolution. A time when we were at war, and elements in our society spoke out against the inequalities then rampant throughout the land. It was a beginning, but it was not the end. Now the struggle rises again to roil our lives and trouble our dreams. Well then, it’s damn well time our dreams were troubled, for we have let much go on for too damn long.
This is just a beginning, but it will continue. The young will carry on, for it is their world they are fighting for. It is my world they are fighting for. So to them I say, “fight on.” Keep up the effort and let no one say you nay. Persevere, and let no one give you pause.
At the link above you will come across a fairly good description of scientism, as the author understands it. You'll find others and not all will agree with him. I for instance don't. Not entirely and not as he does.
Scientism is one of those words who's meaning, who's description depends a lot on our experience in the subject of science. It depends a lot on how we see science and on how we were taught science to be. For my part I was taught to see science in a certain way, and to apply it in a certain way.
As I see it science isn't really a thing, but a way of discovering and learning. Science isn't really about knowledge, but more a way of learning. A way of discovery and how to verify and confirm that what you have learned is true. Science is a matter of faith, faith in our ability to verify and learn, but not faith in science per se, but in how the scientific method can and will lead to learning.
In short science is not a matter of fact, but more a matter in finding out. A matter or learning from observation, trial, and experience what is going on in the world. In a recent photo on the web we saw a raccoon sleeping in a man's living room. When a commenter said that raccoons are dangerous she was right. But at the same time she neglected to point out that sometimes some animals can be so comfortable around humans they really have no problem with them, and may well come to adopt a particular human as part of his family.
This is where science comes in, for by using science we are able to accept that things don't have to be the way we were told they should be. That there are things not dreamt of in our philosophy.
As I see it scientism is the belief that we can take the pronouncements of scientists on faith, that they are matters of faith and not to be discounted just because they are matters of revelation and authority. In scientism science consists of a series of hoary old prophets stomping down off a mountain bearing stone tablets bearing the Word of God upon them. As far as I can see scientism is science as religious belief, and that's not how science works.
And as far as I can see science and the scientific method can be applied to most anything, even things that we assume can't be, for as we learn of them we will learn just how they could work if they indeed were. For we are an animal that needs to understand, or to think we understand even when our understanding is wrong. For that gives us a basis on which we can learn of our errors and correct them. Science gives us the tools we need to discover and correct our mistakes. Scientism denies us those tools and insists that we take what we know as holy writ. Science is a pair of reading glasses making our world clearer. Scientism is gouging out the eyes because what you see, albeit oh so dimly and blurred, offends you.
So that is my understanding, how I see scientism. My understanding is necessarily blurred, incomplete, but at least it's a start and one I can improve upon. What is your understanding, can it be improved, and can you let it be improved?
I've decided I'm going to make this very plain, there is a great ape living in North America, and the link above provides evidence for this.
The problem is not with the evidence provided, but with Ketchum's interpretation of it. She says it's proof that the sasquatch is a hybrid of Man and some unknown ape. She says this because it would appear that they found gorilla DNA in the samples she tested. Ah, doctor, that's not how it works.
Now I'm not what you'd call literate when it comes to reading the results she provides, but somebody much more competent than I came to this conclusion. Namely that what the specimens showed was a lot or gorilla DNA. This leading me to the conclusion that the sasquatch of North America is descended from a common ancestor of gorilla and human.
Unfortunately her mistake regarding what the sasquatch is unfortunately led certain other parties to conclude that the animal does not exist. Indeed cannot. I've forgotten what the logical fallacy is called, but assuming that being wrong in one area means you have to be wrong in everything. That's not how it works. What her work did do is demonstrate the existence of a great ape living in North America, and which may even be native to this continent assuming that it is a separate species instead of a sub-species of yeti.
But there are those bigfoot scares, because to them only humans can be bipedal apes. And that when it comes to the sasquatch you can rely on the authorities.
I say, "Bull shit."
When anybody says anything that is counter to the available evidence they can't be relied on. That's what it comes down to, and what it means is that some self-identified scientists can only be called creationists where this subject is concerned. They talk like creationist, they think like creationists, they act like creationists. And I say it's damn well time they damn well stopped.
There is nothing supernatural about bigfoots, they're just damn apes.
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating religious discrimination claims against two airports because plans for Chick-fil-A restaurants were scrapped after complaints about the fast food chain's stance on LGBTQ issues.
Now I have to conclude that barring a party for its stance on anything where a government facility is concerned is not right. Something about making no law regarding the establishment of religion. But, at the same time for a representative of a company to say they aren't out to oppress a party when they damn well are, tells me that the company in question cannot be trusted. As Jesus of Nazareth once said, "Make your 'yes' a 'yes;' and your 'no' a 'no'. In short, speak honestly.
When the consequences of an action means harm to another, than supporting that action in any fashion means you support it.
Some people just have to control the lives of others. Most especially the lives of those they have been put in charge of. Said abuser was just a common bigot and convinced that he was better than Stanley. Though I suspect that it was fear of growing old and dependent on others himself that shaped his behavior. Just remember that one day you may well be old yourself and in need of assistance. And that the old are still worth your consideration.
This is an example of what you get when certain parties just have to be in charge of things, especially when they just don't have the competence to be in charge. David Brin is right when he says we need transparency where our government is concerned, and what we're seeing here is an example of this. This is grade C tyranny and I say it's about time we spoke out and let the petty despots know we're not going to put up with it.
That yes, they are games, but they have damn all to do with role playing. You can role play in one, but that's not really what they're for. What they are for is achieving goals, the role playing is just something you can do but don't really have to. Your play can be entirely mechanistic, emoting is entirely something else.
My experience in this matter goes back to 1976, when my prestidigitator (now a word) character found himself faced with a dragon. Knowing I was out matched I backed off. The greatly amused dragon let him go, knowing full well that a 1st level MU was just no challenge. (Then there was the fact the DM playing the dragon was greatly amused.) A bit later I talked a balrog into almost killing the dragon for me (I lied outrageously), which lead to my PC getting tons of loot and 8 7th level dwarven henchmen (different mechanics concerning henchmen back in those days).
My experience was, it matters more how you handle a situation than what you can handle. And that your goal is really to amuse the guide.
Years later I read about an encounter in the adventure Necropolis for Mythus. (Spoiler) The encounter involved a demon driven insane by long incarceration by the big bad in a room in a crypt. Said demon really had no trouble taking care of the party, but he was more interested in using them to stymie his foe. So he told them how they could escape, and what they needed to do to defeat the villain Rahotep. Note that they could escape his room, he just couldn't.
From these two incidents I learned that you can handle matters differently, and that how you handle things can profit you. You have more tools than just your weapons, and more alternatives than just mindless violence. And I first learned this when I was 20, an age when boys are nitwits by and large. To put this simply, this is why I much prefer to treat them as guides to adventure, because that's really what they are. Adventure Guides is what I'd rather call them, for in my experience treating them as such works a lot better than insisting on them as games.
So use your initiative and be flexible. You're there to have fun, not to slavishly follow some thoughtless regulations.
I'm getting close to 3,000 subscribers to this blog. But seeing as they are excessively shy they haven't told me why. What the heck am I doing right?
There are various reasons why some people have type one diabetes. For the most part it's because they just can't produce insulin themselves, so they need to inject it. And seeing as they need to remember when to do it, and they need to do it in unusual amounts, leads to complications.
And after considering the problems the diabetic has keeping track of all he has to, now start considering what he needs to pay for the insulin, the syringes, and the tools he needs to keep track of. Andfor we make matters worse when we treat insulin as a luxury item.
That's what it comes down to. There are parties who apparently think that all persons with type one are fabulously wealthy and can afford outrageous prices for what they need to survive. Or, if they can't afford it, deserve to die. I have to ask, when did becoming insulin dependent become a death penalty offense? I say we stop the shit and make insulin free to all who need it. I mean, corpses can't contribute to society, at least not for very long. Call it an investment in people, and give those who manufacture and distribute insulin a break on their taxes. For every ounce of insulin donated to the diabetic community the donor gets a tax reduction and positive feedback. A special discount on necessary items maybe.
There is a reason why greed is considered a deadly sin, and I say it's about time we cut it out.
This is really nothing new, San Diego has long had what is know as the Psychiatric Emergency Response Team (PERT), but they are not always available, and are often overwhelmed. What our DA is proposing sounds to me like the city will be applying the training given to those on the PERT team to all officers, and even when medical personnel aren't available at least the cops will know who to call when faced with a mental health crisis.
Of course it means spending money, but better I say to spend a little on prevention to a lot on cleaning up after a death or major injury.
So a thumb's up to DA Summer Stephens and I hope this means a safer world for those in crisis and the officers called on to handle them.