Kitman

At the end of the day, the bulk of science is explaining the what?, how?, why? of things. Everything that happens must have a reason for happening, something that causes it therefore its possible that science will find the answer. Given enough time and resources they will be answered, it could be however that those resources are billions and billions of pounds and the time limit is 10k years. Everything has an answer, even if that answer is "a big soopadoopa all seeing all knowning being that controls everything", if some scientists susses that out and proves it then science is still responsible for the discovery. Cause and effect, question and answer, everything has an answer. Did you read science at uni by any chance? No, I dont agree. There might be some things that human science can't explain, even given infinite time and resources. There's a limit to what human beings can observe, infer, conclude. Unless you're including alien science? It seems odd to me that you're claiming an open mind, but do not accept that the boundaries of human advancement may very well be limitless. How can we possibly deduce that in another billion or so years we have not evolved to the point that such big questions as "how did it all begin" are now within our grasp? Science isn't just the science of modern times, bound by our current limitations. Science is simply the quest for provable answers, even if those answers disprove previously held ideas. Just as we mock past sciences as ludicrous, there are "sciences" now that would seem entirely mystical to someone from a couple of centuries ago, and no doubt in a century or so into the future, there may very well be sciences that are truly mind-boggling. So I don't know how you can possibly dismiss science so quickly. Lets look at the progression of science vs faith, faith has clung on and has, itself, evolved to try and keep up with a discipline that, time and again, gains momentum as, time and again, it's theories are backed up with empirical data. Creationism is faith's way of trying to ride the wave of scientific discovery and pretending like the last thousand years of assertion to the contrary have gone away. You say science needs answers, cause and effect? Surely that's a criticism that can be levelled at Faith as well. Scientists say it was the Big Bang, Creationists say it was God. Scientists don't pretend to understand fully the causes or circumstances of the Big Bang but they're trying to, Creationists outwardly decry anybody who does try to understand the terrible glory of God, and insist we should accept that God was the cause and we are the effect. I guess I just don't understand anybody who is wilfully ignorant, and frankly don't care if this makes me sound arrogant. I think you've missed my point really. It's not about "faith" vs science for me. I'm not championing religious faith at all, I'm questioning whether science is all it's cracked up to be. I don't believe in God, so I don't have an anti-scientist agenda if that's what you think. In fact I don't think I mentioned faith at all. What I was questioning is where this belief in science as the font of all answers to everything comes from. I expect for some people, ghosts can't exist as there's no scientific consensus for it, so end of story. It's not logical, rational, scientific. But why form a view of the supernatural exclusively based on science? As you highlight above, scientific enquiry is changeable from age to age, put on and thrown off like an old coat, and yet if we're told it's scientifically proven/unproven, we tend to accept it as truth. We also tend to accept this as the correct way to think. Scientists can't explain half of what goes on in human experience and on planet Earth without starting on the rest of the universe. I'm dubious whether given unlimited time and resources that will ever change but you think differently, so fair enough. For all the talk of scientific method and empirical evidence, I bet a lot of the great theoretical discoveries of the modern era owe a huge amount to imagination, inspiration, instinct and guess work back-filled with scientific method to provide a proof. I have no way of backing this assertion up of course, I should read up on Einstein but I can't be bothered. However for me science is just another iteration of the development of human thought, in one or two hundred years time or so I reckon there'll be another and better methodology along. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for the progress we've achieved through science. I'm not a mad Luddite plotting the end of civilisation in a log cabin in Kentucky. However I think unquestioning acceptance of the scientific approach breeds a kind of prosaic literal mindedness which diminishes us and makes life duller. I prefer to think there's maybe more to life than a series of chemical interactions on a rock hurtling through space. I don't think ghosts exist but I'd like to think they do. I prefer not to rule them out simply because the scientists haven't come up with an explanation for their existence. I'm not convinced by Kevin's mate though, That's what I meant by having an open mind.

Spot on, sadly

I had exactly the same experience the night before last. Except it was actually my daughter, 4 o'clock in the bloody morning....

At the end of the day, the bulk of science is explaining the what?, how?, why? of things. Everything that happens must have a reason for happening, something that causes it therefore its possible that science will find the answer. Given enough time and resources they will be answered, it could be however that those resources are billions and billions of pounds and the time limit is 10k years. Everything has an answer, even if that answer is "a big soopadoopa all seeing all knowning being that controls everything", if some scientists susses that out and proves it then science is still responsible for the discovery. Cause and effect, question and answer, everything has an answer. Did you read science at uni by any chance? No, I dont agree. There might be some things that human science can't explain, even given infinite time and resources. There's a limit to what human beings can observe, infer, conclude. Unless you're including alien science?

if you follow my advice, you'll find your next exam is much shorter and you won't have to sit them anymore

did you see her face?

lowest you can get. Don't like politics, forced into it, didn't work, didn't pay attention, took the hand on my exam. Started chatting about how this country should be run by a man great like barack obama Was nearly crying laughing in the exam, it was so stupid but hilarious Next time you should just flop out your "awld fella" in the exam room and trace the outline on your answer sheet. That'll show 'em! Be sure to tell everyone you're going to do this beforehand, including the supervisor. You may wish to employ this expression of protest in other walks of life, for instance if someone complains about their food at McDonalds. Just use a paper napkin instead of the exam paper. You'll find it's quite an attention grabber and they're sure to see the funny side. No need to thank me for this advice.

Well I wasn't looking for a comparison between scientists and religious nutcases, that's like comparing dog and cow shit in my opinion. In other words they're both similar in their own way (and both are likely to smell too). I don't really agree with your assertion that there's a scientific answer to everything. There's an essential arrogance about scientists that given enough time their methods are clever enough to come up with all the answers and explain everything in the Universe. This comes from the superiority complex that scientists have had since the days of the Enlightenment, and which is passed on in the classroom from generation to generation. The advances of the 19th and 20th centuries have reinforced this all encompassing deference to Science. Basically to a scientist, if it can't be explained by Science, it can't possibly exist. However Science has been dreamt up by humans, it's practised by humans and is therefore subject imo to all the limitations that humankind have, as much as scientists like to argue otherwise. Good and bad science has come and gone over decades according to what's in fashion. Human beings can't help but interpret science through the prism of their own experience and according to their own prejudices and the limits of imagination. It's an extremely effective investigative method but it's not perfect. So yes, I think there's more to the Universe than science. it shouldn't be a case of Science or nothing. There's plenty in human life and experience which is unscientific but which might be an equally valid way of looking at things, we just don't know. I think the idea that everything ultimately has a scientific explanation is just a bloody big assumption and well, distinctly unscientific. I prefer to keep an open mind about things in general. Something better than scientific explanation might be just around the corner for all we know. Just wait till the little green men get here.

the state of educashun today, tsk

You can look forward to an interesting debate with the Grim Reaper then, when it's your turn He's not so bad, as long as I can beat him at a game, I get to live and if Keanu Reeves can manage it, I'm sure I'll be fine. He's probably had a bit of practice since then....

"Should I get up from my computer and go to the toilet or wait a couple of hours? What do you think people?"

Find that hard to believe. Science think they have an answer for every single thing. There has to be more than science in the universe. This is true and why it's best to have an open mind. Also scientists tend to be very boring folk in my experience.

Why do you have to send it though? Even if there's some sort of legal requirement, how is this former tenant going to force them to provide it? I honestly think it's asking for trouble, better just to tell them to move on imo. He could have had a copy of the contract if he wanted when he was a tenant, so tough luck.

Well I won't pretend I'm not disappointed. Fair play to Cardiff City but we should really have pulled out the stops on this one. A front pairing of Carroll and Bellamy would have ensured Premiership survival in my opinion.

You can look forward to an interesting debate with the Grim Reaper then, when it's your turn

when you say dodgy, you mean fucking shit

I don't disagree with his comments about Carroll at all tbh. He's got to get used to the PL and making the most of the few chances that come his way, he had a good all round game as it happens, he just needed to do better with the chance 5 yards out in the first half. He could develop into a very good centre forward, which samuels fails to acknowledge, but it's just a red top puff piece so who cares?

Bollocks probably I bet lots of people on your street have died in various ways, there's probably one for every occasion. I'm sure your wife's account is genuine, but there may be other explanations for this. Incidentally, if you think of ghosts as people, they are significantly less scary. I mean if it's just your old grandad or whatever hanging around in a cloud of gas, you'd probably just tell him to feck off and give you some privacy. I'm more scared of burglars, they might have knives

Amen to that. CH won't drop them though because of his 'safety first' mindset and because they're senior players. Our best hope is if one (or both) pick up injuries. I said before this game that MUFC's pacy players would run rings round us and sadly that was what happened. Surely CH can see this, it's totally fecking obvious. If we sign HBA I wonder if we'll drop one of them at least? Probably not away from home....

Big Mac, large fries and a Coke, please Do you have a student card, take advantage of a free mcflurry ? See Kevin, that's why you're here

Big Mac, large fries and a Coke, please

Who said he was lying? He may believe he saw his dead uncle (not Clancy) but was actually mistaken. The mind plays tricks at the best of times and there may be any number of reasons why - a trick of the light, auto suggestion, feeling scared, a flashback, intoxication through drink and drugs, undergoing a psychotic episode, having an overactive imagination, being sexually abused by his uncle as a boy etc. Just because somebody sees and believes something, doesn't necessarily make it true. Rastafarians have seen Haile Selassi and believe him to be the true Son of God. They are not lying. Do you therefore believe they are right? Incidentally I have an open mind about the after life. However I'm sceptical about that too but I think most people are. I'm also a bit sceptical about it. It's scary thinking but that it's nothing.. like its over, your body shuts down, only you dont know it shuts down, because your gone, you cant think anymore, jesus, just lying there, finished, but you dont know your finished, you know nothing. Fucking scary I thought you were supposed to feel bulletproof at your age? Anyway by the time you pop your clogs they'll probably just chuck you in the deep freeze till death gets cured. That or they'll dissect your brain in the interests of science

Who said he was lying? He may believe he saw his dead uncle (not Clancy) but was actually mistaken. The mind plays tricks at the best of times and there may be any number of reasons why - a trick of the light, auto suggestion, feeling scared, a flashback, intoxication through drink and drugs, undergoing a psychotic episode, having an overactive imagination, being sexually abused by his uncle as a boy etc. Just because somebody sees and believes something, doesn't necessarily make it true. Rastafarians have seen Haile Selassi and believe him to be the true Son of God. They are not lying. Do you therefore believe they are right? Incidentally I have an open mind about the after life. However I'm sceptical about that too but I think most people are.

I actually have a very open mind on this, but I'm yet to be convinced. Basically my own experiences don't support it and there isn't any empirical evidence for it either, so I'm sceptical. I think there's a chance there might be ghosts in some form - whether it's the spirits of the dead is another matter - but I don't think the case for it is convincing at the moment. The truth behind most ghost stories is suspect at best, and eye witnesses tend to be credulous, superstitious, or there are specific factors at work (mood, lighting, setting, cultural references etc). Also a lot of eye witnesses tend to be drunks, crazies, feeble minded, superstitious, new age hippies, thickos etc which doesn't help. The Victorians were obsessed with trying to prove the evidence of ghosts, and nobody managed it. Nah I really do believe in them, a boy in my old class aswell seen his dead uncle (not clancy) staring at him above the stairs. I doubt he'd lie about it. Well that's me convinced ! Why didn't you say you had a mate that had seen one ?! Let me know if he's also seen the Loch Ness monster, alien spaceships, dinosaurs in the Congo, pixies at the bottom of the garden, and a rift in the space/time continuum in the Bermuda Triangle, as this will clear up a few things for me.

At the end of the day he's only rented a room ffs. He's got nothing to threaten your mate with and I assume the amounts of money involved are small. If she's worried about it she can always try the Citizens Advice Bureau, but I'd just stonewall the guy till he goes away.