|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 28, 2022 12:01:56 GMT
Sorry for not being 100% serious, but we simply can not be serious when it involves the BBC and the wider deep state establishment.
Here is the News - it was on last night's BBC Radio 4 News as a discovery by a British scientist. It is rare that the BBC News ever carries a positive piece of news. Most of it is about death and destruction, and if there be good news it will normally only stretch as far as news that signals the end of bad news. Scientific discoveries are not of this type, for they are genuinely all good and positive. The acquisition of human knowledge through scientific discovery is always additive in the progress of the human race. Understanding of nature has indeed built the modern world. The BBC News therefore in its relentless quest to dumb us all down and scare us into docility is strongly biased against reporting scientific discoveries and so if it ever does, it will just briefly mention the really big ones, e.g. the Higgs boson got a brief mention at the time. Bearing this in mind and the general dire state of British science, it is almost unheard of to hear of a British scientific discovery on the News. The last one I think was graphene at Manchester University, but the chap was Russian. So with this in mind I present to you the findings.
The experiment goes as follows. The woke scientist got a few bees and some balls. The balls were 1.5cm and after adding these balls to the bees it was observed the bees were holding on to the balls, like even though as it was explained that if we scales it up to our body size it would mean big balls, like bigger than you are, and yet despite this the bees clutched onto them.
The conclusion of the observed behaviour is that bees are intelligent and have feelings for the balls. It's like they want to hug them. Now because they want to hug them and have feelings for them then it was posited that bees share our own human intelligence and are to be classified as "sentient beings" and should be looked after and cared for like we do our loved ones. Now if that was not fascinating enough, it was further theorised that all insects are similarly intelligent and the same laws should apply. You tread on a spider and it sis murder. Anyway, in finding this out you can see why this is a big and important scientific result that is sure to give every scientists a rethink about what they believed in the past.
So what did they believe in the past?
It might not have come to the BBC's attention that it's left hand does not know what its right hand does, but one day prior to this great British scientific discovery was a programme on cats. As is usual on the BBC science, one has to do a science programme on the familiar to keep the prole's attention span for more than 5 seconds, so cats was the science of the day before. Recall the BBC's charter is to educate, so we are now going to be educated by cats. For our cat science we had a real British expert in evolutionary biology talk us through our moggy. The prole listener's enquiry to be answered by our expert was something along the lines of my cat loves me, it has all this kind of behaviour that means it must and so cats must be intelligent - is this true.
The answer was a resounding No! Your cat is really dumb. This is not the first time a BBC expert has trashed a common belief through the rigours of science. It seems to me there is an enjoyment they get out of it, so here follows a trashing of a common myth. It goes like this: and he cited "Morgan's Law of evolutionary biology" (not quite sure of the spelling here/might be wrong) In this law it reasons that brains take up a lot of energy, and evolution is a very efficient system. Therefore if there is an observed behaviour it has to be the case that the behaviour is achieved with the minimum brainpower therefore minimum energy. He used an example of an animal begging for food. It might do some actions to achieve its goal but those actions would have come from the smallest bit of brain capable of creating those actions. So lets say an animal cries when it is hungry to its mother. It does not need any intelligence to do this because all it has done is figured out this noise ends up getting it what it wants, and nothing like the complexity of human whinging say. It's just like an automaton - dumb.
So there you have it: one rule for bees and insects, and another rule for all other forms of life. Can anyone explain this conundrum? I think the bee discovery won some sort of prize. The name of the "British scientist" is totally unpronounceable unless you have fluency in the language of bongo bongo land.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 1, 2022 20:06:53 GMT
Today on the BBC we are told chickens are also highly intelligent. We had some woman chicken keeper who plays them music and lets then sit on her lap, hence she says signifying they are smart.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 5, 2022 12:06:31 GMT
www.imperial.ac.uk/news/171050/bee-brains-have-never-seen-them/Not that woke. Bees have been subjected to scans showing the propensity to learn and benefit from memory. To be fair the dept of zoology at Cardiff were heavily into such research when I was an undergrad there in my first year 1976-77 Not sure I can find the research papers from the time though, I’ll have a poke about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 5, 2022 12:54:26 GMT
www.imperial.ac.uk/news/171050/bee-brains-have-never-seen-them/Not that woke. Bees have been subjected to scans showing the propensity to learn and benefit from memory. To be fair the dept of zoology at Cardiff were heavily into such research when I was an undergrad there in my first year 1976-77 Not sure I can find the research papers from the time though, I’ll have a poke about. I'd liken it to saying a Z80 "can do complex tasks". I can go on to say a Z80 system was found to have memory and learnt to do a wide range of things...
I think they are looking for any old shit to research so they can look like they are doing something useful with our tax money.
Meanwhile the world moved on. In useful research the standards are much higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 6, 2022 9:35:48 GMT
www.imperial.ac.uk/news/171050/bee-brains-have-never-seen-them/Not that woke. Bees have been subjected to scans showing the propensity to learn and benefit from memory. To be fair the dept of zoology at Cardiff were heavily into such research when I was an undergrad there in my first year 1976-77 Not sure I can find the research papers from the time though, I’ll have a poke about. I'd liken it to saying a Z80 "can do complex tasks". I can go on to say a Z80 system was found to have memory and learnt to do a wide range of things...
I think they are looking for any old shit to research so they can look like they are doing something useful with our tax money.
Meanwhile the world moved on. In useful research the standards are much higher.
Well, you might say that. I’d say a very large number of scientists were taught a number of techniques in micro surgical manipulation, microscopy and the like. I certainly was. If you’ve read Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” he speaks of a moment early in his career where one of his mentors was confronted with irrefutable electron microscopic photographic evidence of the existence within the cell of an intracellular organelle called the Golgi Apparatus which he had for some time utterly rubbished the existence of. The person providing that evidence and giving Dawkins his very own ‘Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus’ moment taught me to use the transmission electron microscope and his work with the scanning electron microscope paid for by that very research you belittle was almost artwork. You had to be there to see it. And I’ve personally done some wonderful things with Z80s but that’s a story for another time. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 6, 2022 10:27:58 GMT
I'd liken it to saying a Z80 "can do complex tasks". I can go on to say a Z80 system was found to have memory and learnt to do a wide range of things...
I think they are looking for any old shit to research so they can look like they are doing something useful with our tax money.
Meanwhile the world moved on. In useful research the standards are much higher.
Well, you might say that. I’d say a very large number of scientists were taught a number of techniques in micro surgical manipulation, microscopy and the like. I certainly was. If you’ve read Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” he speaks of a moment early in his career where one of his mentors was confronted with irrefutable electron microscopic photographic evidence of the existence within the cell of an intracellular organelle called the Golgi Apparatus which he had for some time utterly rubbished the existence of. The person providing that evidence and giving Dawkins his very own ‘Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus’ moment taught me to use the transmission electron microscope and his work with the scanning electron microscope paid for by that very research you belittle was almost artwork. You had to be there to see it. And I’ve personally done some wonderful things with Z80s but that’s a story for another time. Whatever god-figure Dawkins reckons in his book that arrogantly states in its title a conclusion science can not make, the humdrum fact of money, tax, results, abilities of the UK through science remain just the same. Our country is falling behind and this woke science is fooling the taxpayer that something useful is being done in the name of these prestigious institutions like Imperial College. Yep, sure thing, If I had millions of pounds funding I could get a foreign top-of-the range electron microscope and see what goes on in a bee's brain. This would be original, not because I'm the first person in the world with the level of intelligence to do this. Oh no, it is because I have access to a machine that 99.999% do not have and until recently no one had. They tell us modern science needs a lot of funding too. Well that floor planning problem I showed you (this is a real industrial problem) does not need anything expensive. It needs mathematical skills and this is why you see a great number of Chinese names on these papers, and the one in the video I saw a good half a dozen Wongs and Changs and so on.
What I think you suffer from is the slow boil effect. It has imperceptibly dropped a little at a time for a very long time and so really there only way to see this is look at a country doing it properly and compare the quality of science. There are very few decent bits of science going on in the UK in the fields I enquire about.There is more and more of this junk that no one has ever bothered to find out because it is such useless knowledge, e.g. another Brit study was where cats go at night. Again this was original not because the Brits' brains are bigger than anyone else, but in the past they did not have the trackers to do it and no doubt someone told them bluntly we will not give you a PhD for that pile of turd science. They had certain quality standards in the past they do not appear to have now, most likely because the ones setting the quality scammed it themselves.
By the way, an old friend of mine wrote a chapter of Dawkins' book. I've not read his name in any useful science though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 16, 2022 17:18:50 GMT
The latest piece of idiot research in Blighty is 'do spiders dream'. It was on Radio 4 today, the usual place to catch up with all the latest moronic science.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Nov 16, 2022 17:42:51 GMT
The latest piece of idiot research in Blighty is 'do spiders dream'. It was on Radio 4 today, the usual place to catch up with all the latest moronic science. you appear to be one of those odd fellows who insists on spending a large amount of his time listening to a radio station he regularly states he hates strange behaviour |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 16, 2022 18:23:54 GMT
I don't. I switch it on at regular intervals, listen to about 5 seconds and if it is a load of cobblers I switch it off, but this caught my attention. I listened to about a minute's worth as some uber pretentious public school accent bloke was describing it as if it were some leading edge rocket science stuff. Indeed so ridiculous did it sound that if it were broadcast in the 70s you'd think it were a Monty Python sketch.
|
|
