Jump to content

Is Wi-Fi making your child ill?

lmgtfy

By lmgtfy
in IT News

 Share

Recommended Posts

GrumbleDook

GrumbleDook

Posted
Posted

I'm in the camp of giving a healthy amount of respect to start with ... it is an optimistic approach and not without risk ... but I just like to smile and think nice things about people.

It also gives people a larger drop if they start to screw me around!

  • Thanks 2
jinnantonnixx

jinnantonnixx

Posted
Posted (edited)
To be fair, it did take a very long time for the health effects of Tobacco to be recognised and for greater regulation. If there are any issues with WiFi further research needs to be done and a consensus in the Scientific and Medical communities.

 

I'd quibble over that statement. The tobacco industry itself knew that smoking is harmful as early as the 1950s, and actively suppressed its own documentation that concluded this. Furthermore, they deliberately muddied the waters in a way that is now regarded as a textbook method for casting doubt on scientific research (currently used by climate-change deniers, BTW.)

 

Search "Doubt is our product", a phrase used in an infamous tobacco industry memo.

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/doubt-is-our-product/

Edited by jinnantonnixx
mikeprice

mikeprice

Posted
Posted
I'd agree with that. There is a "baseline" level of respect that I will offer to everyone who doesn't do anything to cause me to reconsider it, and there are ways to earn a higher level of respect as well.

 

I agree - respect goes up and down on a sliding scale - but I would start with a general level of default respect for someone as a person and then take it from there

Garacesh

Garacesh

Posted
Posted
I'd agree with that. There is a "baseline" level of respect that I will offer to everyone who doesn't do anything to cause me to reconsider it, and there are ways to earn a higher level of respect as well.

I don't see that as respect. I see that as general courtesy. Respect is distinctly different, to me personally, the closest thing I could describe it to would be admiration.

 

I don't have to respect you to be courteous, and I don't have to be courteous if I respect you (I'm more likely to be, but depends on the circumstances..)

pcstru

pcstru

Posted
Posted

Most 'arguments' are just a process of agreeing what words actually mean.

 

Respect, which defines three meanings, (1) Admiration, (2) Honour, and/or (3) a Feature.

 

So there is perhaps some conflation here between 1&2; Admiration is generally 'earned' in the sense of you admire someone because of something you know about/of them (the information is external to you). Can you have a baseline for "Admiration" - not really IMO, or at least I struggle to see how it would have any meaning. However, Honour - politeness, deference, care in avoiding offence; that has a natural baseline in the sense of "do unto others", i.e. you don't need to know anything about the other person rather, your sense of respect comes from yourself.

Garacesh

Garacesh

Posted
Posted
Most 'arguments' are just a process of agreeing what words actually mean.

-snip-

Honour - politeness, deference, care in avoiding offence; that has a natural baseline in the sense of "do unto others", i.e. you don't need to know anything about the other person rather, your sense of respect comes from yourself.

Well the problem with discussing meaning and etymology is that again, you often find multiple meanings no matter how deep you dive.

 

Honour, for example. A person can have their own personal honour, or they can honour somebody else. I consider courtesy a section of my own personal honour. I may not place as much focus on honour as say, feudal Japan, but honour nonetheless. As an honourable man* (I'd like to think :p) I extend courtesy to others - but that doesn't intrinsically mean I respect them. Just that I'm not going to be a git to someone unless they do something I deem makes them deserve it.

 

* Most of the time, anyway..

pcstru

pcstru

Posted
Posted
Well the problem with discussing meaning and etymology is that again, you often find multiple meanings no matter how deep you dive.

Really? I'd think those who compile dictionaries would be expert at diving deep and, well - the meanings they find are well documented. Outside of that there may well be a few more which might, with common usage make it into future revisions or perhaps just die out; but the depth is finite and actually quite limited.

Honour, for example. A person can have their own personal honour, or they can honour somebody else. I consider courtesy a section of my own personal honour. I may not place as much focus on honour as say, feudal Japan, but honour nonetheless. As an honourable man* (I'd like to think :p) I extend courtesy to others - but that doesn't intrinsically mean I respect them. Just that I'm not going to be a git to someone unless they do something I deem makes them deserve it.

I think that is part of the relative values that people have (and is an aspect which makes it difficult (for me) to grapple with the idea that "respect has to be won"). Values can be different between people but they can also be different at different times in the same people. Things that I used to respect I no longer do because my values have changed. However, IMO the meaning of words is fairly persistent even with those changes. The problem with "they have to win my respect" the is that no one can actually know what actions might cause a gain or loss of respect (at least outside of any shared cultural context). That seems to result in someone expecting others to respect their value system (because otherwise an 'innocent' action might cause a loss of respect) while they are saying they will not respect other values system until they prove worthy of respect. That is asymmetrical and as such seems flawed.

Garacesh

Garacesh

Posted
Posted
Really? I'd think those who compile dictionaries would be expert at diving deep and, well - the meanings they find are well documented. Outside of that there may well be a few more which might, with common usage make it into future revisions or perhaps just die out; but the depth is finite and actually quite limited.

My point was that if you're having a discussion about it, it's probably because there's multiple meanings. If you attempt to consult the dictionary to clear things up, you're just going to find the different meanings listed, and then you're going to have to decide on which one you're referring to, which often is different to different people. It's a reasonable place to start, but ultimately the subjective nature of most discussions limits its use as a resolutionary tool.

 

The system as you describe it, I would agree is both accurate and definitely flawed. But human beings are flawed so whilst I can't say it's correct to be flawed, it's certainly understandable. My system certainly is flawed, I don't respect (by my definition of respect, which I appreciate differs from others) people I don't know. Like, literally, I am mentally incapable of respecting a stranger, simply because I know nothing about them. Respect, per my previous link with admiration, simply cannot be given until you know more details about somebody. However, I will still be courteous to said hypothetical stranger. I suppose you could say by being courteous I am being respectful, and that's where etymology gets difficult as I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. But in the same way, you could simply say I'm being polite. But respect and politeness aren't intrinsically linked. I can be polite to people I don't respect, and I can be impolite to people I respect.

 

The issue about "earning respect" and nobody really knowing what gains or loses them respect is real, yes. But then again, respect isn't a system you should try to game. You be you, and if our personalities are compatible, then I will likely gain respect for you because you will act in ways I consider morally good. If you act in ways I disagree with or conduct yourself in away I consider morally reprehensible, then I will lose respect for you. Neither of those things should intrinsically be a bad thing. They are simply facts. I understand the desire to be respected, but it shouldn't really be something you base your behaviour on.

pcstru

pcstru

Posted
Posted
Is Wi-Fi making your child ill? No

 

Are anti science nitwits who don't vaccinate their children making your child ill? Yes

 

And yet, "science" seems absent of such absolute certainties. IMO according to science the correct answers are more probably, 1. Probably not. 2. It is likely it is a significant risk factor.

 

I appreciate "anti science nitwits" exploit doubt and uncertainty in scientific endeavours - "hey, Anthropogenic Global Warming, it's ONLY a theory", but the driving force of science is essentially doubt. Was it you who claimed Economics was not a Science? If so, I'm curious as to what you think "Science" actually is?

Norphy

Norphy

Posted
Posted

 

Are anti science nitwits who don't vaccinate their children making your child ill? Yes

 

Surely they're making their child ill, not mine. Mine's going to be immunised:)

sted

sted

Posted
Posted
Surely they're making their child ill, not mine. Mine's going to be immunised:)

no because immunisation is a "herd" thing it really only works if the vast majority of people are immunised iirc otherwise you run an increased risk of breeding a new resistant strain

Ephelyon

Ephelyon

Posted
Posted (edited)
If so, I'm curious as to what you think "Science" actually is?

 

Without specific reference to @mavhc, because this is a much broader picture...

 

I think that, for many people, Science has become the Great Liberator - the True Way. They consider that humanity faces a great struggle against the Unwashed - the Heathens. For there is a great tide approaching, a tide of Taxi Drivers, Little Britons and Creationists; the Racists, Sexists and Homophobes; the Ignorers of Data, the Evolution Deniers and - may they burn for it! - the Wealthy.

 

But there is a great rallying call for the True Believers - it is Science! Science is, and shall ever be, "the Way, the Truth and the Life" (to quote the Bible). It will rise up and crush the Unclean; they will quake at its might and crumble before its onward march. Verily, the lost arguments with the Clinically Stupid will be re-won! Those who have made it their mission to take up the call whenever "someone is wrong on the Internet" shall be delivered to Salvation by Almighty Science. Yea, and St Dawkins shall greet them at the gates of the New Era and usher in an age of Self-Righteous Fury.

Edited by Ephelyon
  • Thanks 2
pcstru

pcstru

Posted
Posted
Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public.. Which touches on some of my concerns with the adversarial approach that seems to prevail. The other thing that has recently surprised me is seeing the likes of Neil Degrasse Tyson trash philosophy (Link to a response to that, as it is more illuminating than the trashing alone)) as a subject while simultaneously admitting to ignorance of the subject. There is an arrogance there that contains the seeds of ... a backlash.
  • Thanks 1
  • 3 weeks later...
Roberto

Roberto

Posted
Posted
In my old workplace, there was a sign next to the photocopier:

 

"Please close the lid after you've finished. If you don't, ultra-violet radiation will be released into the atmosphere!"

 

I'm still not sure if the person who put it up was serious or not. @Roberto will be able to back me up here :)

 

Ages since I visited edugeek. Yes it happened and yes they were serious. :-(

  • Thanks 1
mavhc

mavhc

Posted
Posted

Yes, it's totally not because I didn't vaccinate her.

 

Yes, neck injury from staring at a screen all day.

 

Yes, she's now an Informed, Literate Librarian

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...