"Mark Thompson" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> D
> > Ask the Millionaire audience
> >
> > Do helmets save cyclists lives ?
>
> They have and they do. Just not many.
>
> > Should helmets be made compulsory for children?
>
> Oh come on - at least think a bit. This question is effectively
> a value judgement relating to the worth of life and/or wellbeing
> Vs nanny state and/or burden on healthcare. It has no right or
> wrong answer.
If I may remind you Mark, your intervention was in response to the
following claim by one of this NewsGroups seemingly more prominent
intellectuals and political theorists....
"Jon Senior" <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
<quote>
Assuming that IQ actually means a thing anyway. People have different
ways of approaching problems. In purely democratic terms however, an
ever increasing number of people who share the same view might imply
that they were on to something.
</quote>
So according to the likes of Senior here, the likes of Guy
the Gorilla are clearly wasting their time trying to force their
views onto a totally impervious majority. Basically they should simply
STFU and do all their power to persuade others to fit cycling helmets
on their kiddie-winkies, just like any sensible parent would do.
And you see Mark, unlike with the audience in WWTBA Millionaire,
the voters don't in fact go to the polls every four years or so so as
to decide on whether Paris really is the capital of France or not, or
the name of Britney Spears latest single.
They're mainly deciding on questions with no obvious right or wrong
answer. Whereas if you want to know the name of Britney Spears
latest single, you don't need to ask the audience on Millionaire,
you simply ask at any record shop. What could be simpler?
With me so far Mark ?
Which is why WWTBA Millionaire, of which you were so proud, was such a
totally stupid analogy for anyone to choose in the first place.
>
> > Because the audience on Millionaire can't be guarenteed to
> > get the answer right to everything their views are worthless.
>
> Bit like Einstein's then.
No Mark I think you'll find that the problem with someone like
Einstein is that relatively few people are capable of satisfying
themselves as to whether Einsein was correct or not in any one,
never mind every, particular.
So most people have to take someone else's word for it, who we
can call Mr X. as to whether Einsein was broadly correct in any
particular hypothesis. So then its not only Einstein's own reputation
which is solely in question here, but then it also becomes that of Mr
X, who we have elected to interpret Einsein on our behalf.
But there again IIRR, Einstein was pretty weak on baseball, the
music of Tommy Dorsey, Astrology, and Chinese cooking to name
but a few. So let's just hope every last one of those equations
of his are all spot on - according to Mr X at least.
Whereas in reality of course the reason why particular claims in the
General Theory of Relativity may be correct or not, is not because the
General Theory of Relativity was formulated by Einstein, or because
the consensus of physicists say that Einstein is correct, but simply
because The General Theory produced predictions which corresponded
with actual physical data - specifically in respect of the solar
eclipse of 1919 and the bending of light rays. Because that's the
only real criterion of truth or falsity. No matter how many people
may choose to agree or disagree.
Which is where we came in, I believe.
>
> Goodbye.
Yes Mark, I can easily see why you'd prefer to just slip away.
Just like the resident intellectual cum Scourge-of-Top-Posters-Net-Nanny
did, when asked to provide any actual proof of Bill Gates's poor
coding technique, to support his claims.
Curious
