07 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseWell, up till a couple of hundred years ago astrology was considered a science. Alchemists believed you could turn lead into gold. None of this was lunacy to them.
In what way are today's standards of idiocy different from the past?
Nowadays, we know alot more than they did. We don;t believe those things anymore (most of us anyway!).
They lived their lives according to their times. In 100 years time people will be saying we're all idiots, but let's just live ours too.
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitosePeople talk about different kinds of intelligence today (IQ, EQ)--so a person could score low for one form and high for another.
Had heard of it in passing; I wasn't aware that it was an obsession. In any case, would one aspect of a man's thinking define the whole?
Newton's wacky apocalypse trip shows that the Bible and algebra are a myth-math.
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe Bible = myth? Or is that a great pun: mismatch?
People talk about different kinds of intelligence today (IQ, EQ)--so a person could score low for one form and high for another.
Newton's wacky apocalypse trip shows that the Bible and algebra are a myth-math.
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMy lifes work is something far simpler. My current project is to understand the developmental basis of grass growth. For example, a grass plant grows a leaf, then that one stops growing whilst another one grows. Why does it do this? Why not have one huge leaf? How does it signal internally it tell the dividing and expanding cells what to do? How is protein turover in the leaf managed? What are the implications of all these factors on the selection of grass varieties for agriculture.
They had a much better idea than you! What's your Magnum Opus?
How is yield determined in cereals? I have some evidence of a link between the physical properties of the way the plant grows and the protein turnover in the leaves. How are photosynthetic processes regulated by these interactions?
Many, many, questions, and we're only at the start of understanding the answers. Much fundamental science has been done, and now we're starting to join up the pieces.
My quip 'neither did they' was merely that, a quip.
08 Dec 05
2 edits
Until the age of ten, I was 'raised in' the Unitarian Universalist 'church', where half the congregation is agnostic and the hardliners go around burning giant wooden question marks on the front lawns of dogmatic people 😛.
I still go to their Festivus Eve services, because it's interesting to hear the people I run into in the shops at home make unusually beautiful music.
08 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNews to me, but I heard he was a real bastard in life. He hounded Liebnitz(sp?) who developed a calculus before him (but published later)
Was Newton's apparent apocalyptic obsession news to you at all?
He also enjoyed sending men to the gallows for forgery.