Account Login

Email Address
Password
Remember Me -
* Recover Password
* Create FREE account


Advertisements






Sundries

 

Exhibit One: The West Chooses the Rule of Law
 
“Dice are small polka-dot cubes of ivory, constructed like a lawyer to lie on any side, but commonly the wrong one.”
-Ambrose Bierce “The Devil’s Dictionary”
 
McDonalds loses a trademark battle over the Big Mac in Ireland:
 
“As regards the extent of use, all the relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account, including the nature of the relevant goods or services and the characteristics of the market concerned, the territorial extent of use, its commercial volume, duration and frequency.


The assessment of genuine use entails a degree of interdependence between the factors taken into account. Thus, the face that commercial volume achieved under the mark was not high may be offset by the fact that use of the mark was extensive or very regular, and vice versa. Likewise, the territorial scope of the use is only one of several factors to be taken into account, so that a limited territorial scope of use can be counteracted by a more significant volume of duration of use.”
 
We as a society in the West have decided to put Lawyers in charge. Is this really where the rule of law gets you? The Museum wants to point out that it isn’t taking sides on the merits of this case. This is just a public service to illustrate the language our “Rule of Law” is being put into.
 
Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2:
“The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.”
Shakespeare’s Opinion?
 
Exhibit Two: Consensus
 
Consensus: a generally accepted opinion; wide agreement
-From the Cambridge Online Dictionary
 
Chaim Azriel Weizmann (27 November 1874 – 9 November 1952) was a Zionist leader and Israeli statesman who served as President of the Zionist Organization and later as the first President of Israel. He was elected on 16 February 1949, and served until his death in 1952. Weizmann convinced the United States government to recognize the newly formed state of Israel.

Weizmann was also a biochemist who developed the acetone–butanol–ethanol fermentation process, which produces acetone through bacterial fermentation. His acetone production method was of great importance for the British war industry during World War I. He founded the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel and was instrumental in the establishment of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

-From the Wiki

Upon a time Chaim found himself crossing the Atlantic to America on a boat with Einstein. He talked about it later. “Einstein explained his theory [of relativity] to me every day and on my arrival I was fully convinced he understood it.”
 
There has been much discussion in the past 20 years over what qualifies as consensus in science. Consensus is not 100% agreement, indeed there is no "set” percentage that says this is a consensus. But just like Einstein’s Theories an unarguable consensus grew up over the years as more and more scientific studies supported the predictions of those theories. To this day not every scientist in the world agrees with Relativity, and more to the point science has advanced beyond his theories to new realms of quantum mechanics, etc. But just like Newton before him, Einstein’s insights have not just been cast aside, rather they have been built upon, enhanced and further refined, but nothing in that process has diminished their basic insights. This does not mean there are not scientific papers questioning parts of that foundation, but unless they offer an alternative theory that can not only show how their new point is valid, it must also show how it concurs with all the other established facts from the previous theory.
     It is easy to nitpick a single published paper and find fault in some data point or other. This is fine, and if the finding of error is valid it will be addressed in further studies. A finding of an error in one paper does not invalidate the whole theorem, nor does it bring into question all the other papers with no found faults. Finding and correcting errors is how science advances. Nor is it incumbent on a theory to intimately answer all questions at once. Finding the finite workings of a universal truth is always a work in progress. Science did not stop with Einstein’s output in 1905, just like it didn’t stop with Darwin’s publication in 1859. There will always be unknowns, but these gaps do not invalidate the theory. They are blanks to be filled in as more knowledge is acquired.  
     If you don’t “like” evolution than advance an alternate theory such as intelligent design. Then get that theory supported by a consensus of scientific papers to where it not only proves itself as base theory, but also supports all the other known facts about biology and the new DNA studies. Well, intelligent design has been advanced, but the Museum doesn’t find the volume of scientific papers supporting it anywhere in the published record. Human influenced Global Warming is a hoax, fine. But where are the published papers not only showing errors in a few papers, but supporting a theory that can explain all we see happening around us? Well, of the papers that are out there around 97%, depending on where you start your count, find Human culpability. Is that consensus? What if it’s only 90% is that still consensus? If you have 10 knowledgeable people in a room and 9 of them say “you should have taken a left at Albuquerque” the museum feels it pretty clear that a left should have been taken. If the One can get 9 more to say, “no you should take a right” then at that point the merits of the situation should be examined.
     And now we go back to the Chaim quote, for the background of the alternate proposal has to be taken into account. Chaim had the foresight to know that even another scientist, if their background is in a different field, may not be qualified to judge the merits of a theorem. Check the sources of the information you are reading. (I saw it on Facebook, it must be true!). Are they scientists, or are they quoting published scientific papers correctly and in context. There are plenty of Doctors disputing Evolution, but most of these are Doctors of Theology not Biology. There are Doctors disputing Human influenced Climate Change, but most of those are Doctors in other fields, not climate science. The final defense to support your alternate theory seems to be a fall back on conspiracy theory which by its very nature can never be proved or disproved.
     Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, Young Earth, Nibiru, Deep State, Ancient Aliens, the Truth is out there.
 
Exhibit Three: To Infinity and Beyond
 
The Museum has heard that a consensus is growing behind the scenes at NASA that the unusual Methane cycle on Mars is being caused by life. On the same note NASA also feels that Human travel to The Red Planet is not yet possible, not because of our Rocket Engineering, but because Humans cannot survive the radiation inherent in space for a trip of that duration. Neither of these finding have been officially reported so keep it hush-hush, see conspiracy theory above.
    
At the Exit:
Bread lines…televised Cabinet flattery sessions…centrally-planned economic industrial policy: Under Republican leadership, the US is turning into Republicans’ scariest 30-year-old Soviet fever dreams.
— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) January 22, 2019

Unkwil

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

Uncle Willie loves to have feedback from both readers who appreciate his point of view as well as from missguided souls who disagree.