1. avatar Leif Bodnarchuk
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10159667.stm

    "The culture minister has asked museums to give more prominence to Ulster-Scots, the Orange Order and alternative views on the origin of the universe."

    i laughed. Perhaps he didn't say those things in such close proximity to one another, but grouped together like that... Tangent?
  2. avatar pauldoherty
    It's becoming more and more like Texas here.....
  3. avatar chuckbilliards
    Yea was just reading that. The only place for Creationism is under a dictionary reference for 'self-denial' imo, never mind in a bloody museum sitting along-side ancient artefacts supporting not only the theory of evolution but also that the earth, and the rest of the universe, is at least 4 billion years old. Baffling.
  4. avatar Recycled Alien
    [quote:7239bfc5c6="Leif Bodnarchuk"]"The culture minister has asked museums to give more prominence to Ulster-Scots, the Orange Order and alternative views on the origin of the universe."[/quote:7239bfc5c6]Let's hope the museums reply is "awa an fook yersel, ye bigot".
  5. avatar sloppyjoe
    Well, in a spirit of "parity of esteem" and giving due respect to other people's beliefs, I think the museum should make a fair presentation of the creationist theory. Right next to the ancient Egyptian one where a cow gives birth to the sky and a beetle rolls the earth up out of a ball of shit.
  6. avatar Chi-Lite
    I'd imagine a lot of museums specialising in Egyptology have a lot of exhibits displaying just that.

    Remember it's a museum folks. it displays human artefacts representing human culture. It's not a fucking science textbook, or a peer reviewed journal. don't get yourselves in a hissy fit again. If enough people here are creationists, give them a wee light up interactive thing showing darkness getting separated from light and what have ye.

    My biggest problem is i'm not so sure there are that many literalist creationists here, and that Nelson is representing only a tiny minority - but sure what's new?
  7. avatar sloppyjoe
    But remember, too, that the museum is essentially an educational institution. Children go there to learn. I don't have a problem with them learning about creationism as an anthropological curiosity, on a par with Egyptian and other creation myths - the UM does have an egyptology room, by the way. But I think it would be completely inappropriate to present it as natural history, an equally valid alternative to Darwinism. And I suspect that this is exactly what McCausland wants.
  8. avatar Chi-Lite
    Well again, the point is how many people hold to the view. If, like Nelson's suggesting, a sizeable number of people here believe it, then its more than just an anthropoligical curiousity - it reflects the prevailing culture of this current society, not an ancient Egyptian or African tribal one. As such, it would probably be important to learn about it.

    But no, i reckon as usual he's acting in the interests of a tiny minority. Still, it's not too clear - how many people here in the north would you reckon are biblical literalists? there's definitely quite a few, but I don't reckon there's that many.

    I'd rather have a metaphysical existential creationist exhibit, somehow showing the fruition of potential being by the actuality of divine [i:51e39d180a]Esse[/i:51e39d180a], i reckon that's more representative of the craic and of what most people think, and we could have it right after Darwin's wee birds.
  9. avatar Leif Bodnarchuk
    [quote:8fd365c76e="Chi-Lite"]Remember it's a museum folks. it displays human artefacts representing human culture. It's not a fucking science textbook, or a peer reviewed journal.[/quote:8fd365c76e]

    Hit the nail on the head. A museum generally involves history. Doesn't something have to stand a wee bit of a test of time before it makes its way into a museum?

    i would say that Creationism isn't due its spotlight in a museum, not yet anyway.
    Church newsletter yes, museum no.

    When someone makes a lovely carving or beautiful painting that tells a story of creationism, sure. Oooh, wait a minute, isn't that the Sistene Chapel?
  10. avatar Chi-Lite
    Aye it is - and do you reckon if they took the roof off it nobody would want tp put it in a museum - of course they would, it's an important human artefact.
  11. avatar BinaryOperator
    From the museum's site:

    "museum is home to a rich collection of art, history and natural sciences"

    See that Sciences bit right there? Surely that precludes any display of myth as fact? I would think that myself, but sure what do I know.

    I like the idea of creation myth exhibits tho. Reading about religions used to be a hobby of mine. There are some great creation myths from around the world and a fair few recurring themes (e.g. of floods) etc. Then again Nelson probably thinks people who believe in those myths are insane, as well as bound for hell in a handcart...
  12. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:6e85fac4ec="BinaryOperator"]From the museum's site:

    "museum is home to a rich collection of art, history and natural sciences"

    See that Sciences bit right there? Surely that precludes any display of myth as fact? I would think that myself, but sure what do I know.[/quote:6e85fac4ec]

    Aye, but see that art, history bit - that includes all sorts of cultural views and artefacts about all sorts of things.

    And anyway, there can be a scientific study of myth and its basis in reality, like Roland Barthes. I'd love to say a display explaining the allegorical and factual implications of the biblical creation story, and a history of the development of views on it - including the boul Christian interpretation and the 19th centure literalist reaction
  13. avatar savagebilliards
    some day fastfude will be represented in a museum for future generations to admire the great minds of the past!
  14. avatar boarsheadtaverncheapside
    Hang on, are you seriously telling me that this place has a minister for culture? Ahahahahahahahahaha!
  15. avatar Leif Bodnarchuk
    [quote:df8040f976="boarsheadtaverncheapside"]Hang on, are you seriously telling me that this place has a minister for culture? Ahahahahahahahahaha![/quote:df8040f976]

    Cam aaaahn, don't be naughty. There is a lot this place has to offer. What our cultural... thingies... need is someone who can represent them honestly. Uslter-Scots stuff, yeah sure, why not.

    Creationism? One step at a time mate, seriously. Not like we invented it... (Did we:O )
  16. avatar BinaryOperator
    [quote:142a7047f7="Chi-Lite"][quote:142a7047f7="BinaryOperator"]From the museum's site:

    "museum is home to a rich collection of art, history and natural sciences"

    See that Sciences bit right there? Surely that precludes any display of myth as fact? I would think that myself, but sure what do I know.[/quote:142a7047f7]

    Aye, but see that art, history bit - that includes all sorts of cultural views and artefacts about all sorts of things.

    And anyway, there can be a scientific study of myth and its basis in reality, like Roland Barthes. I'd love to say a display explaining the allegorical and factual implications of the biblical creation story, and a history of the development of views on it - including the boul Christian interpretation and the 19th centure literalist reaction[/quote:142a7047f7]

    Ahh but you cannot display "biblical creation" in isolation. As I said I would like to see a comparative thingamybobajigger. My school based education did not give me any information on any religion or belief system other than judeo-christian and variants thereof. Nothing on Voodoo for example, but a whole lot on a zombie cannibal death cult. Nothing on Baron Samedi and the loas, loads on a living dead Jeebas ;) When I was reading a lot on religions I found the cross pollination parts really interesting (christianity and voodoo do overlap for example), the overlaps, the commonality. Like I said about floods and creation myths. I do think that would be an interesting and worthwhile exhibit. Not sure it belongs in a museum tho'?

    Art and History should be presented as that, and not dressed up as, or presented in the same way as, scientific fact. There should be a clear distinction made. At least there's been no mention of "Intelligent Design"...
  17. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:896a75cd15="BinaryOperator"]Ahh but you cannot display "biblical creation" in isolation.[/quote:896a75cd15]

    I don't think even Nelson has suggested throwing everything else out - has he?

    [quote:896a75cd15="BinaryOperator"]I do think that would be an interesting and worthwhile exhibit. Not sure it belongs in a museum tho'? [/quote:896a75cd15]

    Why not?

    [quote:896a75cd15="BinaryOperator"]Art and History should be presented as that, and not dressed up as, or presented in the same way as, scientific fact. There should be a clear distinction made.[/quote:896a75cd15]

    What kind of distinction - "this isn't true, but this is"? The problem with that is that you're already taking a scientific paradigm of truth. I think a certain form of creation is true, for exampel, but I don't claim it to be be scientific fact. There are other sorts of truth. and, as I've said, museums shouldn't be restricted to science, unless it's a science museum.

    I think a museum purporting to explain and tell the story of human history would be pretty inadequate if it just gave a load of scientific facts.
  18. avatar sloppyjoe
    But part of the function of any museum is to present a view of "truth". On the one hand, you have the artefacts - a mummy here, a pointy stone there - and on the other, you have the interpretation. Without the interpretation, it would just be a dumb collection of old stuff, telling us nothing at all. We could all go and look at it and form our own ignorant opinions, but there isn't much value in that. One fragment of Mesopotamian pottery is very much like another to me - I need an expert to tell me what it is and why it's worth showing. And as soon as you start doing that, you're buying into someone else's values and knowledge and their idea of the truth.

    We could argue till the cows come home about what is and isn't "truth" but basically, the museum is a scientific endeavour and it has to take an evidence-based view. Either something is supported by the archaeological evidence, or it isn't. And in the case of creation stories, the evidence is all on Darwin's side. We can't go looking at all accounts of creation side by side as if they were all equal, because they just aren't.
  19. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:e0b7220cd2="sloppyjoe"]But part of the function of any museum is to present a view of "truth".[/quote:e0b7220cd2] - yes, but why neccessarily a scientific reductionist one?

    [quote:e0b7220cd2="sloppyjoe"]We could argue till the cows come home about what is and isn't "truth"[/quote:e0b7220cd2]

    Yes, that's the gist of it.

    [quote:e0b7220cd2="sloppyjoe"]but basically, the museum is a scientific endeavour[/quote:e0b7220cd2]

    No its not. it's an educational and cultural endeavour purporting to show the story of human history. It cannot do this by taking a sheerly scientific reductionist view - if that were the case it could tell us nothing about purported motivation or the influence of human will on any aspect of history.

    [quote:e0b7220cd2="sloppyjoe"]Either something is supported by the archaeological evidence, or it isn't.[/quote:e0b7220cd2]

    Or its not an arcahaeological question in the first place, but purports to go beyond archaeology.

    [quote:e0b7220cd2="sloppyjoe"]And in the case of creation stories, the evidence is all on Darwin's side.[/quote:e0b7220cd2]

    But Darwin has nothing to say about creation - he has a lot to say about development and timescales for such development, but not about the appearance of the universe. While that may be relevant to a small marginal view of creationism that posits an actual timescale, it has nothing to say about the idea that the universe is god's creation, ya know.
  20. avatar my-angel-rocks
    Ahh, its going to be one of those days...awesome.
  21. avatar sloppyjoe
    See, we're not quite on the same page here. I understand "creationism" to mean the good old fundamentalist thing, where the book of Genesis is taken to be literally true, right down to the seven days, Adam and Eve and all that stuff. And I honestly believe that this is what McCausland is arguing for. I don't think he's talking about any watered-down, "intelligent design" flavour here, but real, full-on Creationism with a capital C. It plays well with a certain influential minority constituency, so whether he really believes it himself or not, he stands to benefit from defending it.

    As for whether or not museums are scientific, we may be at cross-purposes there as well. I say "scientific" in the sense that archaeology and palaeontology are themselves sciences. Not just because they're -ologies, but because they have to take a scientific approach to gathering, validating and analysing evidence in order to draw conclusions from it. Anything less is just stamp-collecting, as Huxley might have said.
  22. avatar fastfude
    [quote:42d3ba4e93="Leif Bodnarchuk"]One step at a time mate, seriously. Not like we invented it... (Did we:O )[/quote:42d3ba4e93]

    well...
    [quote:42d3ba4e93]In 1650 the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, published the Ussher chronology based on Bible history giving a date for Creation of 4004 BC[/quote:42d3ba4e93]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
  23. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:04c9bf0acf="sloppyjoe"]I understand "creationism" to mean the good old fundamentalist thing, where the book of Genesis is taken to be literally true, right down to the seven days, Adam and Eve and all that stuff. And I honestly believe that this is what McCausland is arguing for.[/quote:04c9bf0acf]

    I think you're right - my point is that that putting some kind of display like that in a museum beside all sorts of other artefacts will open up a dialogue about what it really means, how it fits with the other artefacts, what wider questions it raises. I'm not a literalist, my only problem is the implict push to make museums take a scieitific reductionist view of truth. t should go beyond that, and display all osrts of answers to wider questions.


    [quote:04c9bf0acf="sloppyjoe"]As for whether or not museums are scientific, we may be at cross-purposes there as well. I say "scientific" in the sense that archaeology and palaeontology are themselves sciences.[/quote:04c9bf0acf]

    Yes. I don't really see your point though. On one hand, museums aren't ONLY for arcaheology and palaeontology - they're for all different sorts of things as well.

    On the other hand, if the literalists have some archaeological or palaeonotological artefact that they find lends credence to their case, let's see it.
  24. avatar Strong Reaction
    Maybe the old Maze site will be turned into a Creatonism Shrine, and feature a Troubles Theme Park.

    Willie Drennan can be in charge of the Ulster-Scots section and sing his important historical song on the merits of Champ.
  25. avatar Deestroyer
    I don't understand, so what are you proposing then? The artifacts produced by religion - ancient golden crucifixes, biblical documents, Turin shrouds etc - are already represented in various museums along with their influence on art etc. They have a cultural influence, fair enough.
    But what else do you want the museum to do? Display pictures of saints and say: St Bob - 'may or may not be blessed with divine super powers'.
    What about ghosts? A LOT of people believe in ghosts, but surely you don't think there should be an installation in a museum presenting evidence for ghosts that puts it on a level playing field with Byzantine weapons, uniforms from WWII or dinosaur bones just so we can "explore its wider questions". Where would such a practice end? Fairys? Boogeymen?
    These things have interesting anthropological or evolutionary psychological stories to tell but that's all and shouldn't be misrepresented as actual possibilities.
    Also, I really don't think there has been a major push to make museums more scientifically reductionist. Science is usually well represented but I can't see what's wrong with that. If it weren't, then I'd be worried.
  26. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:c909361a4b="Deestroyer"]What about ghosts? A LOT of people believe in ghosts, but surely you don't think there should be an installation in a museum presenting evidence for ghosts[/quote:c909361a4b]

    Is there evidence for ghosts?

    [quote:c909361a4b="Deestroyer"]that puts it on a level playing field with Byzantine weapons[/quote:c909361a4b]

    What do you mean, "a level playing field"? If there was evidence for ghosts I would expect to see it - all evidence is on a level playing field.

    [quote:c909361a4b="Deestroyer"]These things have interesting anthropological or evolutionary psychological stories to tell but that's all and shouldn't be misrepresented as actual possibilities.[/quote:c909361a4b]

    But creation IS an "actual possibility" - many people would say it's the most likely.

    [quote:c909361a4b="Deestroyer"]Also, I really don't think there has been a major push to make museums more scientifically reductionist. Science is usually well represented but I can't see what's wrong with that. If it weren't, then I'd be worried.[/quote:c909361a4b]

    I'm not big into the museum commissioning world, but there does seem to be a perception that museums should be scientific. Like the comment up there that says "a museum is a scientific endeavour". Fair enough, this phenomenon may be restricted to Fastfude, but sure that's where I get all my data for cultural analysis.
  27. avatar Deestroyer
    But a museum isn't a debating chamber. We don't go to decide if dodo birds existed or not, we go to see its carcass.
    I think it would be irresponsible for museums to display 'artifacts' pertaining to events the very existence of which is seriously disputed.
  28. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:b49fab5807="Deestroyer"]But a museum isn't a debating chamber. We don't go to decide if dodo birds existed or not, we go to see its carcass.[/quote:b49fab5807]

    Again, I think that's evidence of the scientific reductionist paradigm of truth dominating museums. I'm all for going to see the carcasses of dodo's but I'd also like to see some kind of history, using whatever artefacts and cultural works there are, of man's spiritual development and grappling with the questions of existence. I'd rather not just have bare scientific facts in museums.
  29. avatar mullinino
    ...this country IS a living museum,or perhaps more of a Jurassic Park with all the f-in dinosaurs bumbling around on it...exhibit A-the "Culture" "Minister"...
  30. avatar mullinino
    ...Exhibit B-Yous Lot.
  31. avatar BinaryOperator
    [quote:2d88180762="Chi-Lite"]
    I don't think even Nelson has suggested throwing everything else out - has he?
    [/quote:2d88180762]

    "I'd love to say a display explaining the allegorical and factual implications of the biblical creation story" says you, not nelson. Hence I was replying to you. You have an opinion you'd like to see biblical stuff. Your opinion. My opinion is that that should not be taken in isolation, or you could be seen to be being, Oh I dunno biased in some way?

    Teh comment about if it should or should not be in a museum was a statement of my opinion. I'm still not sure it belongs in a museum. Museums are finite spaces. There's a lot of history in the world. I'm not sure what should be displayed. If only there were experts who worked in museums who were better placed to evaluate that. Oh hang on....

    [quote:2d88180762="BinaryOperator"]Art and History should be presented as that, and not dressed up as, or presented in the same way as, scientific fact. There should be a clear distinction made.[/quote:2d88180762]

    What kind of distinction - "this isn't true, but this is"? The problem with that is that you're already taking a scientific paradigm of truth. I think a certain form of creation is true, for exampel, but I don't claim it to be be scientific fact. There are other sorts of truth. and, as I've said, museums shouldn't be restricted to science, unless it's a science museum.

    I think a museum purporting to explain and tell the story of human history would be pretty inadequate if it just gave a load of scientific facts.[/quote]

    LOL. Do you know how scientific method works? do you know what a "Scientific fact" is? If not you are not equipped to take part in this discussion as you do not understand the basic terminology used. You say "scientific paradigm of truth" WTF? you mean the whole testing a hypothesis with experiment and repeatability etc etc??? Do you pray everytime you take an aspirin or do you blindly place your faith in "science". Fuckmepink, lol!. Distictions should be made in so far as there are things that have "Scientific evidence" that has stood up to scrutiny.

    Shite, hang on - just read you reply where you go on about "But creation IS an "actual possibility" - many people would say it's the most likely."

    I'm done. At least when I talk to my imaginary friends I know I'm crazy.

    You are dead right, a superduper spaceman who was lonely created the whole universe for a fuckabout.

    I'm really interested (aka not joking here) - you seem to have a christian centric point of view on this - do you know much about bible history? ever read the Torah/Talmud? Do you know any Jewish history? What about translational differences, read up on those? Are you an old testament guy or a new testament guy?

    Are you interested in any of that? reason I ask is that almost all "biblical scholars" I have nattered to over the years seemed to be blinkered in so far as restricting themselves to their version of the biblical text, and in some cases they viewed alternate translations as heresy. Some of the reactions I got talking about Jewish history too. Wow. I had a regular ongoing chat about this with a pastors son for a few years at uni. Some really good exchanges.
  32. avatar Deestroyer
    Aye, but is this a 'scientific reductionist paradigm' or just the parameters within museums focus their resources. If you wanted to include all the stuff you're talking about then you're still going to have to come up with a cut off point for inclusion and invite criticism from ever more obscure branches of thinking or belief.
    Look, just leave museums alone, they're dead on. :)
  33. avatar Recycled Alien
    Marty, "scientific reductionism" is a prejorative term based on a nineteenth-century understanding of science. Use of it just marks you out as a bigot.
  34. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:22877c025d="BinaryOperator"]I'd love to say a display explaining the allegorical and factual implications of the biblical creation story" says you, not nelson. Hence I was replying to you. You have an opinion you'd like to see biblical stuff. Your opinion. My opinion is that that should not be taken in isolation[/quote:22877c025d]

    Yes, and where did I say that it should be displayed in isolation? Can you point to where I said that?

    [quote:22877c025d="BinaryOperator"]Do you know how scientific method works? do you know what a "Scientific fact" is?[/quote:22877c025d]

    I do indeed. I was pointing out that there are other kinds iof truth other than scientific truths.

    [quote:22877c025d="BinaryOperator"]You say "scientific paradigm of truth" WTF? you mean the whole testing a hypothesis with experiment and repeatability etc etc???[/quote:22877c025d]

    No - i mean the view that the above is the ONLY kind of truth there is - which is obviously balls. Prove that your sense perceptions refer to an external reality scientifically.....or that laws and patterns are inherent in the object and not the subject....or that 2 + 2 = 4 scientifically....or that possibility is different from actuality...or that your ma loves you...

    [quote:22877c025d="BinaryOperator"]Distictions should be made in so far as there are things that have "Scientific evidence" that has stood up to scrutiny.[/quote:22877c025d]

    But there are also things that can't have scientific evidence - like the above.

    [quote:22877c025d="BinaryOperator"]You are dead right, a superduper spaceman who was lonely created the whole universe for a fuckabout. [/quote:22877c025d]

    who said that - other than your strawman?

    [quote:22877c025d="BinaryOperator"]I'm really interested (aka not joking here) - you seem to have a christian centric point of view on this - do you know much about bible history?[/quote:22877c025d]

    Aye, a bit.

    [quote:22877c025d="BinaryOperator"]ever read the Torah/Talmud?[/quote:22877c025d]

    Aye, a bit

    [quote:22877c025d="BinaryOperator"]Do you know any Jewish history? What about translational differences, read up on those?[/quote:22877c025d]


    Aye, i have actually.

    [quote:22877c025d="BinaryOperator"]Are you an old testament guy or a new testament guy?[/quote:22877c025d]

    Both.

    [quote:22877c025d="BinaryOperator"]I ask is that almost all "biblical scholars" I have nattered to over the years seemed to be blinkered in so far as restricting themselves to their version of the biblical text[/quote:22877c025d]

    How can you be a biblical scholar without taking into account its development?

    [quote:22877c025d="BinaryOperator"]and in some cases they viewed alternate translations as heresy.[/quote:22877c025d]

    Some are.

    anyway, I'm glad you had fun with your friend. now have you ever read any metaphysics? Know anything about epistemology? Interested at all in cognitional development? Know anything about the ens/esse distinction in 12th century theology?

    [quote=Recycled Alien]Marty, "scientific reductionism" is a prejorative term based on a nineteenth-century understanding of science. Use of it just marks you out as a bigot.[/quote]

    what a lot of balls. Scientific reductionism is the view that material science can fully explain every aspect of the universe. It is widely ascribed to by contemporary materialists of all hues, like your man Dennet, or your man Pinker - or those two Churchlands when dealing with the mind.


    Incidentally, I've no more posts - please try not to deluge me with more things than i can answer in 10 posts tomorrow. cheers:lol:

    EDIT;

    As a quick reply to the below comment;

    [quote:22877c025d]If you can't produce evidence to support something, you shouldn't present it as truth[/quote:22877c025d]

    Why not? there are many other types of truth. That substance has accidents, that essences have properties, that mathematics is a logical construct, that universals distribute through participation in forms - there is no physical evidence for any of those things, but they are true
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  35. avatar sloppyjoe
    [quote:1acec63044="Chi-Lite"]I'd also like to see some kind of history, using whatever artefacts and cultural works there are, of man's spiritual development and grappling with the questions of existence. I'd rather not just have bare scientific facts in museums.[/quote:1acec63044]

    The only things of value that a museum can give us are the artefacts and the conclusions drawn from them [i:1acec63044]in a scientific way[/i:1acec63044]. Those conclusions can relate to the bare physical facts of existence or to cultural and spiritual history, but they have to be arrived at by an objective examination of the evidence, with all the scientific debate and peer review that that entails. If you want the non-scientific version, a museum is the wrong place to look. You go to church instead, or read fiction, or get Madame Zinolda to wave her hand over a rock and tell you it was used to mash up holy mistletoe. Because without rigorous analysis, we may as well just accept that one version of history really is as good as another. That would be a wrong position, though. We all see through our own eyes, and nobody's truth is exactly the same as someone else's, but we can all agree that a rock is a rock, and that you can break your toe kicking it. If someone says the rock is an illusion, we'll assume he's either mad or just being contrary. You find out which by getting him to kick it.

    There's no evidence of ghosts, just as there's no evidence to support new-world Creationism. Neither ghosts nor Creationism has any place in a museum other than for anthropological interest. This isn't reductionist, just honest. If you can't produce evidence to support something, you shouldn't present it as truth. That's the job of priests and snake-oil salesmen. Museums can teach us about cultural matters by displaying art, musical instruments, etc, and telling us what is known about these things based on the science. But outside the science, you wander into the wilderness where one guess is as good as another, and it's not the place of museums to propagate that.
  36. avatar BinaryOperator
    [quote:1438b84bd0="Chi-Lite"][quote:1438b84bd0="BinaryOperator"]I'd love to say a display explaining the allegorical and factual implications of the biblical creation story" says you, not nelson. Hence I was replying to you. You have an opinion you'd like to see biblical stuff. Your opinion. My opinion is that that should not be taken in isolation[/quote:1438b84bd0]

    Yes, and where did I say that it should be displayed in isolation? Can you point to where I said that?

    [quote:1438b84bd0="BinaryOperator"]Do you know how scientific method works? do you know what a "Scientific fact" is?[/quote:1438b84bd0]

    I do indeed. I was pointing out that there are other kinds iof truth other than scientific truths.

    [quote:1438b84bd0="BinaryOperator"]You say "scientific paradigm of truth" WTF? you mean the whole testing a hypothesis with experiment and repeatability etc etc???[/quote:1438b84bd0]

    No - i mean the view that the above is the ONLY kind of truth there is - which is obviously balls. Prove that your sense perceptions refer to an external reality scientifically.....or that laws and patterns are inherent in the object and not the subject....or that 2 + 2 = 4 scientifically....or that possibility is different from actuality...or that your ma loves you...

    [quote:1438b84bd0="BinaryOperator"]Distictions should be made in so far as there are things that have "Scientific evidence" that has stood up to scrutiny.[/quote:1438b84bd0]

    But there are also things that can't have scientific evidence - like the above.

    [quote:1438b84bd0="BinaryOperator"]You are dead right, a superduper spaceman who was lonely created the whole universe for a fuckabout. [/quote:1438b84bd0]

    who said that - other than your strawman?

    [quote:1438b84bd0="BinaryOperator"]I'm really interested (aka not joking here) - you seem to have a christian centric point of view on this - do you know much about bible history?[/quote:1438b84bd0]

    Aye, a bit.

    [quote:1438b84bd0="BinaryOperator"]ever read the Torah/Talmud?[/quote:1438b84bd0]

    Aye, a bit

    [quote:1438b84bd0="BinaryOperator"]Do you know any Jewish history? What about translational differences, read up on those?[/quote:1438b84bd0]


    Aye, i have actually.

    [quote:1438b84bd0="BinaryOperator"]Are you an old testament guy or a new testament guy?[/quote:1438b84bd0]

    Both.

    [quote:1438b84bd0="BinaryOperator"]I ask is that almost all "biblical scholars" I have nattered to over the years seemed to be blinkered in so far as restricting themselves to their version of the biblical text[/quote:1438b84bd0]

    How can you be a biblical scholar without taking into account its development?

    [quote:1438b84bd0="BinaryOperator"]and in some cases they viewed alternate translations as heresy.[/quote:1438b84bd0]

    Some are.

    anyway, I'm glad you had fun with your friend. now have you ever read any metaphysics? Know anything about epistemology? Interested at all in cognitional development? Know anything about the ens/esse distinction in 12th century theology?

    [quote=Recycled Alien]Marty, "scientific reductionism" is a prejorative term based on a nineteenth-century understanding of science. Use of it just marks you out as a bigot.[/quote:1438b84bd0]

    what a lot of balls. Scientific reductionism is the view that material science can fully explain every aspect of the universe. It is widely ascribed to by contemporary materialists of all hues, like your man Dennet, or your man Pinker - or those two Churchlands when dealing with the mind.


    Incidentally, I've no more posts - please try not to deluge me with more things than i can answer in 10 posts tomorrow. cheers:lol:[/quote]

    Dude you're well off on one. I did not say you stated that biblical stuff should be shown in isolation, you're putting words in my mouth there. You raised it, and I put forward my opinion that it should not be shown in isolation. I also explained that in a bit more detail. But sure.

    Remember it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

    The whole reality is perception thing is a good debate. Especially after a decent dose of shrooms.

    Scientific evidence is a good point to raise. Ask any pastafarian. May his noodly appendage touch you. FSM. Ramen. The flying spaghetti monster is a great example of using that logic, and also of demonstrating correlation vs causality in relationships (pirates etc). That's if I got you correctly on what you were trying to get across.

    I brought up the biblical history stuff as I am interested in the logic used to prune the tenets of the testaments into today's issues for the modern christian, abominations, sins and the like. The cherrypicking of some aspects while largely ignoring others strikes me as deeply hypocritical and also the bending of information to suit one's own agenda. You probably know where I'm coming from here. Do you eat shellfish? lol.

    I did have fun with my discussions. Though I would not count on that dude as a friend. An insane person perhaps. Anyone who talks to God and God talks back is nuts in my book. Scares the shit clean out of me. If I'm ever in a taxi and the driver starts chatting to Jesus, I am getting the fuck clean out of that taxi.

    I have read some stuff on Metaphysics. I would remove the "physics" bit though, lol. Descartes etc. I have a fair whack of issues with definitions used being unclear, Prior knowledge etc.

    What a digression eh?

    You are entitled to hold your opinions, and I am entitled to mine.
  37. avatar sloppyjoe
    I'm afraid my eyes just glaze over when I see all that "I've read more books than you" stuff. There's more important things in life. Chi-Lite, I agree 100% that there are things you can't account for by strict logic, and there are well-known cases where blindly applying the rules produces clearly absurd conclusions. There are more things in Heaven and Earth...

    All I'm saying is that propositions supported by evidence are in a separate category from the ones that have only faith or guesswork behind them, and education ought to reflect that. I'm lumping museums in with education here, I know, because I think of that as their main function. And because you can't answer me back today.

    My position in a nutshell - Darwin was right; Genesis is a metaphor at best. But does that prove that there's no God, or that God didn't create the world? Absolutely not. Human minds could never reach a definitive answer to that question.
  38. avatar Recycled Alien
    While it might be the hope, assumption or even belief of many scientists "that material science can fully explain every aspect of the universe", that statement itself can not be part of science because it is not falsifiable. (I'm going with Popper here: I'm saying what the system of science is, not anything about universal truths.)

    Putting it up and arguing against it is fighting a straw man.
  39. avatar Leif Bodnarchuk
    This has turned into line-by-line nit-picking. Makes for a dull discussion that veers from the point.

    If (let's say) God created the universe in 6 or 7 days, then the evidence is all around us and we live in a museum of His work.

    If (let's say) there is some intelligent design, it would be kinda cool to find the entity that did it, ask its name, take some pictures and say something about it.

    If (let's say) we found God's magic wand, THAT would make an awesome museum piece.
    What Nelson McCausland has essentially told the museum (IMHO) is to install the wand by summer.

    i feel like going to his office and telling him that my beliefs aren't reflected properly in my local library and he has until summer to get a load of books in that cater to my taste.

    i don't normally go in for massive opinion, but i think he's a twit who's gone way above his office.
  40. avatar Leif Bodnarchuk
    And another thing:D ....

    i like to think of a museum as a Church Of Evidence... You know, where you can pick things up and touch them, see pictures and whatnot. Not evidence strictly in terms of some grand investigation, more like... "hey look what i found, isn't this kinda cool?"

    You don't see people demanding that protestant churches start venerating the Virgin in order to give a more balanced religious view.... Perhaps we should demand N McC installs a bust of Darwin at HIS church.

    Grumble grumble, moan moan.
  41. avatar T Entertainment
    All I can say is thank f*ck, I had basically given up on this place. Fastfude really has become unbearably dull in the past year. I imagine this is just a short lived recovery.
  42. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:a64f5edefb="Chi-Lite"]But Darwin has nothing to say about creation - he has a lot to say about development and timescales for such development, but not about the appearance of the universe. While that may be relevant to a small marginal view of creationism that posits an actual timescale, it has nothing to say about the idea that the universe is god's creation, ya know.[/quote:a64f5edefb]

    For how shocking it may sound, I completely agree on the fact that science only explains the processes and not the origin of those processes. But here we are starting to go down the road of a very complex metaphysical discussion that could drag on forever.

    Creationism could be possibly shown as cultural and anthropological phenomenon, but if we start trying to compare it with natural science we open a can of worms.

    [quote:a64f5edefb="sloppyjoe"]
    The only things of value that a museum can give us are the artefacts and the conclusions drawn from them [i:a64f5edefb]in a scientific way[/i:a64f5edefb]. Those conclusions can relate to the bare physical facts of existence or to cultural and spiritual history, but they have to be arrived at by an objective examination of the evidence, with all the scientific debate and peer review that that entails.[/quote:a64f5edefb]

    But conclusions drawn from Creationism CAN be drawn according to a scientific method, it's just scientific method applied in the field of anthropology.

    If people accept the existence of religious artifacts of other more ancient religions as evidence of the developement of the history of human thought and culture, then Creationism could possibly qualify for inclusion under that context.
  43. avatar Chi-Lite
    Even though I'm gonna bore the life out of ye's, I'm gonna reply to all these anyway.


    [quote:649e9911c5="sloppyjoe"]The only things of value that a museum can give us are the artefacts and the conclusions drawn from them [i:649e9911c5]in a scientific way[/i:649e9911c5].[/quote:649e9911c5]

    Why. Again, there are truths other than scientific ones. Logical ones, for example.


    [quote:649e9911c5="sloppyjoe"]Because without rigorous analysis, we may as well just accept that one version of history really is as good as another.[/quote:649e9911c5]

    But I'm all for rigorous analysis - it just doesn't neccessarily have to be scientific or evidence-based - it can be logically or metaphysically based.

    [quote:649e9911c5="sloppyjoe"]If someone says the rock is an illusion, we'll assume he's either mad or just being contrary. You find out which by getting him to kick it.[/quote:649e9911c5]

    that doesn't really refute it though, as pains in the foot could also be an illusion. That's not a mad position to take - in fact, if we're judging everything solely on evidence it's the most logical position to take, as there's no "evidence" that your senses refer to anything outside themselves. Luckily, we don't just work solely on evidence.

    [quote:649e9911c5="sloppyjoe"]If you can't produce evidence to support something, you shouldn't present it as truth.[/quote:649e9911c5]

    That's your scientific reductionism again. Present evidence that 2 and 2 is 4, or that logical analysis holds true universally...you can't, yet these things are true.


    [quote:649e9911c5="sloppyjoe"]But outside the science, you wander into the wilderness where one guess is as good as another[/quote:649e9911c5]

    Again, balls. That X cannot be both (P) and (not P) is not scientific - but its true - a guess that X can be both (P) and (not P) would be wrong.

    [quote=BinaryOperator]I have read some stuff on Metaphysics. I would remove the "physics" bit though, lol. Descartes etc[/quote]

    to be fair, Descartes wasn't much of a metaphysician - I agree with you that he didn't clarify first principles. I'm talking more Aristotle or Aquinas, both of whom give very rigorous analysis and clarification of first principles. But sure.

    [quote=sloppyjoe]I agree 100% that there are things you can't account for by strict logic...All I'm saying is that propositions supported by evidence are in a separate category from the ones that have only faith or guesswork behind them[/quote]

    Ya see, that's where you're getting mixed up between logic and evidence. I'm saying that everything CAN be accounted for by logic - but that not all of those logical things can be shown in evidence. So propositions that are not supported by evidence need not be based on faith or guesswork - they can be absed on logic.

    [quote=sloppyjoe]My position in a nutshell - Darwin was right[/quote] - I agree. where we might disagree is that i think Darwin being right has absolutely no impact on whether creationism is right, unless we're talking "timescale creation" like that bishop who had it all countyed out in years. I don't think the 6,000 year old earth is right, but that is only a tiny minority view in creationism.

    [quote=Recycled Alien]While it might be the hope, assumption or even belief of many scientists "that material science can fully explain every aspect of the universe", that statement itself can not be part of science because it is not falsifiable. (I'm going with Popper here: I'm saying what the system of science is, not anything about universal truths.)[/quote]

    But I agree with you. But there are still people who hold that view - your man Daniel Dennett holds it, and Paul and Mary Churchland hold it. So its not a strawman, it's actually the view of some people. And I was making the point that saying that only scientific evidence belongs in museums is tantamount to taking the view that only science can get at truth. Which seems to be the view of many people here. which is wrong, for just those reasons you mentioned. so i'm not arguing against a strawman, I'm arguing against the view that some people here have expressed.
  44. avatar Danny Lynch
    Its all a load of balls really. NMC should let the museum show whatever the hell they want. They shouldnt be compromised by some bigotted politician (on either side, might i add) wanting to ensure his/her/its 'culture' is represented.
    No harm to ye's but ulster scots is not a language.. its slang at best. Its not far enough removed from English to be any more than a dialect.
    AFAIK there's a good bit about the Orange Order in the museum, but I can guess from NMC's yapping that its maybe more factual than he would like it to be..ie. doesnt present the OO that well.
    As for creationist... just because people believe it doesnt mean it should be in the museum. So should there not be dinosaurs? Should the museum be restricted to Christian history only? That's bullshit. It's typical DUP imo, but to be fair it could easily have been one of the SF idiots too harking on about Irish (which they speak atrociously and their use of it at Stormont to make a point is a joke) or the rising or something.

    Now lets all kiss and make up and watch those ballbags destroy any level of religious or social freedom we may have had.
    Last edited on , 1 times in total.
  45. avatar savagebilliards
    I'm sure glad when I go the museum its with my 4 year old daughter and not you guys! talk about kill the craic! ;) Only messin guys!
  46. avatar sloppyjoe
    [quote:6d37fde394="Boswell"]After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."[/quote:6d37fde394]

    Still as valid today as it was then. Logic that starts from the evidence is science: logic that doesn't is just ballix. If you think you can prove anything with logic alone, look back to Xeno's paradoxes. Logic is a valuable tool, but it will only take you so far. When you come to the point where it clearly defies common sense, it's time to recognise the limitations and stop worrying about it.
  47. avatar thebatgranny
    I shall be demanding that [url=http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/]Flying Spaghetti Monsterism[/url] be also represented at the Ulster Museum.
  48. avatar savagebilliards
    Now we are talking!
  49. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:55958413e7="sloppyjoe"][quote:55958413e7="Boswell"]After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."[/quote:55958413e7]

    Still as valid today as it was then.[/quote:55958413e7]

    But it wasn't valid then! It's common sense, sure, but that's no substitute for rigorous logical argument. It's the evidence thing again - you can't have evidence that there is such a thing as evidence! You can't refute the idea that the senses are illusory by appealing to the senses! you can't scientifically prove that scientific proof is the way to prove things!

    [quote:55958413e7="sloppyjoe"]Logic that starts from the evidence is science:[/quote:55958413e7]

    But no logic starts from the senses! the whole point of logic is that it's premises are supposed to hold true no matter what the particular circumstance.

    [quote:55958413e7="sloppyjoe"]logic that doesn't is just ballix.[/quote:55958413e7]

    So 2 + 2 = 4 is ballix? Where is the evidence that logic that starts from evidence is science? As Recycled Alien (and Popper) pointed out, science is grounded on a set of assumptions that can't themselves be proven scientifically.

    [quote:55958413e7="sloppyjoe"][If you think you can prove anything with logic alone, look back to Xeno's paradoxes.[/quote:55958413e7]

    It depends what we're trying to prove. If we're trying to prove something about a physical thing then we need to refer back to the physical phenomena - if we're trying to prove something about what grounds physical things, or about some universal rule that inheres in all physical things, we can only do it with logic and metaphysical analysis. If we're talking about a transcendent source of the intelligible universe then we can't prove it by referring to some physical thing IN the universe - because that's what we're trying to explain in the first place.

    Sorry lads, i know i'm a boring bastard, but sure
  50. avatar Leif Bodnarchuk
    For fuck sake.
    If this were a dinner discussion, the majority of us would be asleep while a few people play "word ping-pong."

    2 is the new 5 now fuck up and let's boot NMcC out of his office for being another egotistic dick. :lol:

    i'm gonna phone up Radio 2 and start tellin' 'em they should be more like Radio 1.
  51. avatar Deestroyer
    This fallback position you commonly take of refutation by questioning the validity of sensual perception just causes constant circular arguments that are impossible to resolve. The concept is an important one to understand, granted, but it really has little place in general debate. You have to accept some assumptions and if you refuse to accept commonly held assumptions then we're all arguing on different paradigms rendering the discussion utterly pointless as it spirals into an abstract no one can be arsed getting into.
    It's reasonable, under the most commonly held and basic assumptions that we are 'real' and the physical matter 'exists' and the 2+2=4 is 'true', that Museums shouldn't be displaying 'evidence' for a text that says four dudes put (at the lowest estimate) 20 million animals taken from the various continents, in the at time unexplored world, on a 450 feet long, 75 feet wide wooden boat in seven days.
    It's just stupid, what are you talking about?
  52. avatar sloppyjoe
    (Joe wanders off with drink in his hand to bore some other poor fecker...)
  53. avatar Chi-Lite
    [quote:44ca31b11b="Deestroyer"]This fallback position you commonly take of refutation by questioning the validity of sensual perception just causes constant circular arguments that are impossible to resolve.[/quote:44ca31b11b]

    It's not impossible to resolve - you can take a phenomenological view and extend your reality outwards bit by bit. The reason I keep bringing it up is it's the simplest way to show why some of the statements yous have been making are wrong. I mean, now you say this -

    [quote:44ca31b11b="Deestroyer"]You have to accept some assumptions[/quote:44ca31b11b]

    Whereas before you were saying you can't accept ANYTHING unless there's physical evidence for it. i was just pointing out that you were wrong, and now you seem to agree.

    So you started off with a "everything must have evidence" view, and now you're saying that you don't need evidence, as long as it's "reasonable" - which you haven't really defined and could mean anything. The reason I labour all these points is that, even though you do know all about, you seem to forget it all the time when it suits you, like when you're arguing that everything in a museum must be proven by evidence.

    Right, I don't know what's gonna be in a creationist display. If it somehow sets out the view, by using myth, allegory or fact, that God created the universe, then i think it should be included in a museum. Wjhat's wrong with that. We've already agreed that museums aren't just for science, that not everything has physical evidence for it, and that some things CAN'T have physical evidence for them. Now just let them put their wee picture of an ark or whatever in the museum, I'm all for it. Even the Ulster Scots, sure get that in there too - there's no "evidence" for that either
  54. avatar Leif Bodnarchuk
    [quote:d2156e211c="Deestroyer"]This fallback position you commonly take of refutation by questioning the validity of sensual perception just causes constant circular arguments that are impossible to resolve.[/quote:d2156e211c]

    Hear hear.
    2+2=4 is true because it's a convention. Not because it's true. Humans invented math, just like cars. We agree that certain cars need 4 wheels. Some even run with 3. You can call a motorcycle a car if you want to be difficult, but if you walk into a bike shop and ask for a car, they'd look at you funny, and you'd only have yourself to blame by being 'different'.

    The circular debate thing generally serves the intellectual appetite of the few. i ain't no dummy, but i know when my own smarts are causing further distraction. If yez were all smart, you'd see the wider issue instead of narrowing it down to semantics and other shit.
    There i said it. That just happened.

    i'm going to invent a new term - 'Science Envy'.
    i think certain religious-based beliefs are insecure and need something like (say) a museum to somehow validate and solidify their beliefs. Their faith must be pretty shaky if they need them to be in a museum. i believe in peace and human happiness, i believe it can be achieved through compassion, but i certainly ain't gonna bust a museum's balls to focus on Buddhism. Fuck that, just be nice FFS.:lol:


    edit - haven't there been a ton of people who put down 'Jedi' for their religion on censuses? i guess Yoda should be in the Museum too, not because Star Wars has had a effect on our imaginations, but because he's some sort of prophet? (and doesn't religion do wonderful things for our imaginiations? ;) )
  55. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:5bc30061f4="Danny Lynch"]No harm to ye's but ulster scots is not a language.. its slang at best. Its not far enough removed from English to be any more than a dialect.
    [/quote:5bc30061f4]

    Well, you are actually wrong.

    Technically Ulster Scots is considered to be a dialect (or given the context, a national dialect) of the Scots language, officially is considered to be "[i:5bc30061f4]a regional or minority language[/i:5bc30061f4]". So all this talk about Ulster Scots being just some silly thing people in Mid-Antrim speak is basically a load of bollocks.

    Besides, even in the Northern Ireland Act of 2006 is stated how the Executive should adopt a strategy to enhance and develop Ulster Scots language, culture and heritage. There is a distinct Ulster Scot identity, I see it quite clearly when looking at my family (Ulster Scots) or family friends and that of my Catholic friends. I do see some differences culturally, maybe even trivial ones, but differences none the less.

    Don't mean it in a sectarian way whatsoever, but why concentrate so much on the Irish language and culture and ignore on the other hand the language and culture of a big portion of the Northern Irish population?
  56. avatar sloppyjoe
    [quote:706884a19e="Leif Bodnarchuk"]Yoda should be in the Museum too, not because Star Wars has had a effect on our imaginations, but because he's some sort of prophet[/quote:706884a19e]

    If you did a cartoon of Yoda, would the Jedi issue a fatwa? That is a seriously scary thought. Them boys have light sabres!
  57. avatar Deestroyer
    No, what I'm saying it's reasonable to just accept certain things are true and certain things are in dispute. I think it's reasonable for a person to say that WWII is 'fact' and that the existence of God is in dispute and that the literal truth of the bible is in serious dispute. It's perfectly reasonable also for you to argue your case for the existence of God and for those who believe in the literal truth of the bible to argue their case but that doesn't automatically make those things reasonable, they have to be argued for in a reasonable way.
    If you're questioning what is 'reasonable' then we're back to square one. That's a separate academic topic that we don't have time or patience for but I'm sure you've a rough idea what is generally considered as 'reasonable'.
    Put it this way, if you're in front of a court charged with stealing a bottle of vodka, it is unreasonable for your defence to be that the court can't be sure the bottle existed in the first place, or to suggest you couldn't have removed the bottle as all motion is an illusion.
    If we're going to argue about politics and museums, great. If we're going to argue about philosophy then that is a different matter, the arena changes, the goal posts move. It's too difficult to do. With the greatest of respect and all, if you can't make your case for including religious stuff without questioning the validity of sensory perception then how do you expect anyone to take the idea seriously?
  58. avatar Chi-Lite
    What! but I only brought philosophy into it because you were insisting that EVERYTHING needed evidence.

    I can put the argument in a very straightforward way - it should be included in the museum because it's a viable world view that has shaped human history in many ways.

    Put it the other way - if you can't argue that it shouldn't be in a museum without resorting to claims about the validity of evidence and the basis of the scientific method, why should I take you seriously.

    The museum issue is quite simple. Stick it in there. But if you want to start talking about scientific method and the validity of evidence then it's a philosophical question.

    Why not just stick it in because its an important part of human culture, and because museums aren't just for scientific facts? Is that not straightforward enough?
  59. avatar Danny Lynch
    [quote:6b281eecde="POSITIVExYOUTH"][quote:6b281eecde="Danny Lynch"]No harm to ye's but ulster scots is not a language.. its slang at best. Its not far enough removed from English to be any more than a dialect.
    [/quote:6b281eecde]

    Well, you are actually wrong.

    Technically Ulster Scots is considered to be a dialect (or given the context, a national dialect) of the Scots language, officially is considered to be "[i:6b281eecde]a regional or minority language[/i:6b281eecde]". So all this talk about Ulster Scots being just some silly thing people in Mid-Antrim speak is basically a load of bollocks.

    Besides, even in the Northern Ireland Act of 2006 is stated how the Executive should adopt a strategy to enhance and develop Ulster Scots language, culture and heritage. There is a distinct Ulster Scot identity, I see it quite clearly when looking at my family (Ulster Scots) or family friends and that of my Catholic friends. I do see some differences culturally, maybe even trivial ones, but differences none the less.

    Don't mean it in a sectarian way whatsoever, but why concentrate so much on the Irish language and culture and ignore on the other hand the language and culture of a big portion of the Northern Irish population?[/quote:6b281eecde]


    I didnt say it wasn't a dialect, just that it's no more or less than just that.
    Im not saying it should be ignored. Not at all. But I don't think it's a language in the same way that English or French, and to a lesser extent Irish(simply owing to the fact it's not as widely spoken any more, but it is technically a language)
    I understand that Ulster Scots is much more than a 'language', 'dialect' or whatever, its a culture and thats grand. But thats a different argument. Yes the culture should be honoured and stuff, but there's no way it should be given such status as having its own language.
  60. avatar Leif Bodnarchuk
    [quote:4996a40c0b="Deestroyer"]Put it this way, if you're in front of a court charged with stealing a bottle of vodka, it is unreasonable for your defence to be that the court can't be sure the bottle existed in the first place, or to suggest you couldn't have removed the bottle as all motion is an illusion.[/quote:4996a40c0b]

    Exactamenté.

    On a different note, i think where this discussion shit the bed was when we didn't all agree what a museum's entry criteria is. i guess we'd have to ask the museum first before we go guns a-blazin'.

    Perhaps Mr. McCausland ought to have done the same; looks like we're all as bad as each other.

    Now fuck up and toss that jerk out of office.
  61. avatar Chi-Lite
    Much as I'd love to see him get bucked out of all elected bodies - I mean who actually votes for this twat - I also think it's fair enough that a minister in charge of culture should express a view on, like, cultural things. He should also have some power over the what his department spends money on. that's what ministers are for. It's a pity we've got such a knob for a minister, but that's the boul democ again.

    It seems like a bit of micro-management, but I mean, who are these museum managers? What science informs the way things are chosen to go into a museum? Aren't museum curators just a bunch of people interested in all sorts of stuff who then decide what stuff they want to display?

    Maybe we should have some sort of regular referenda on what exhibits are put in museums. Speaking of which, I think they should have referenda on what films should get made and shown in cinemas. what do a bunch of pricks at Odeon or whatever know about the good stuff?
  62. avatar rpf
    My first post!
    Yes so … Our CULTURE MINISTER has wrote to Museums bullying them into giving more prominence to a) Ulster Scots. b) The Orange Order. C) Creationist theory. Our CULTURE minister is a member of the Orange Order, The Ulster Scots Society and a former member of the Lord's Day Observance Society and of course a evangelical Christian.

    I don’t even think this sort of blatant corruption would be carried out in such a blasé manner in some West african Military state !!

    In all fairness I dont know why I am surprised by that given that he awarded the orange order a few million pounds in grant funding in his capacity as minister despite being a member of the institution. His reasons for awarding the grant aid are frankly hilarious if anyone is inclined to read them.

    Having this man as our Culture Minister is akin to having Nick Griffin sit as the Equality Commissioner.
  63. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:3d278c690b="Danny Lynch"]
    I didnt say it wasn't a dialect, just that it's no more or less than just that.
    [/quote:3d278c690b]

    Yet you feel you can refer to it as 'slang'.

    [quote:3d278c690b="Danny Lynch"]
    Im not saying it should be ignored. Not at all. But I don't think it's a language in the same way that English or French, and to a lesser extent Irish(simply owing to the fact it's not as widely spoken any more, but it is technically a language)
    [/quote:3d278c690b]

    Obviously!

    That is because Ulster Scots is a regional variation, or dialect, of the Scots language. No one is saying Ulster Scots is a language in the same way as English is, but that is not to mean that just because it's a regional dialect it should be ignored or just generally overlooked.

    [quote:3d278c690b="Danny Lynch"]I understand that Ulster Scots is much more than a 'language', 'dialect' or whatever, its a culture and thats grand. But thats a different argument. Yes the culture should be honoured and stuff, but there's no way it should be given such status as having its own language.[/quote:3d278c690b]

    Again, no one is saying it should be considered a language.

    The issue here is about recognising the cultural value of Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland and the fact that at present very little to nothing is done to preserve Ulster Scot culture and language (used in a loose way) as opposed to the massive efforts put towards Irish.
    Coming from a family that can quite clearly be classified as Ulster Scot, I would love to be able to have easy access and support in trying to learn more about the culture and tradition besides learning a bit more of the language. Mind you, spending enough time in Ballymoney or Bushmills does help a good bit with the lingo.

    Irish, righfully, does get it's deal of attention in attempting to preserve the language and culture. I obviously support and endorse that because I think everyone should be able to learn more about their own roots culturally. But I don't see why people that culturally identify as Ulster Scots should be denied the same chances that people who culturally identify as Irish have.

    I don't even mean this as a sectarian thing either, it's just down to a matter of being able to explore my cultural roots as an Ulster Scot the same way in which I would love to be able to explore my cultural roots as a Sicilian.
  64. avatar sloppyjoe
    You're Sicilian as well as Ulster Scots? Interesting combination.

    Ulster Scots isn't a dialect of Scottish - it's a variant of the Scottish dialect of English, mainly characterized by its many loan words from Irish. The parent Scots dialect gets most of its distinctive flavour from Norse, apparently.

    And as far as language goes, I think the whole Scots vs Irish thing is a red herring. All of us here speak the same language and the same dialect, bar slight regional variations. The so-called Scots-Irish language or dialect isn't the exclusive preserve of those of us who trace our roots to Scottish immigrants. [See what I did there? Tact, that is.]

    To be a bit more blunt, Scots-Irish only came to prominence at the time of the 1996 agreement, when certain parties to the discussion got miffed about the funding given to promotion of the Irish language and started clamouring for "me too". If we're honest, it's nothing more than contrarian spelling, or phonetic rendition of a culchie accent. In fact, I seem to recall that there was a research student (from the south) in 97 or 98 who did a job interview with Tha Boord for a laugh, and was offered the job, despite having no Ulster-Scots background. He said that all he did was try to talk with a Ballymena accent.

    Should this be in a new topic now?
  65. avatar POSITIVExYOUTH
    [quote:7074d9f0f1="sloppyjoe"]
    To be a bit more blunt, Scots-Irish only came to prominence at the time of the 1996 agreement, when certain parties to the discussion got miffed about the funding given to promotion of the Irish language and started clamouring for "me too". If we're honest, it's nothing more than contrarian spelling, or phonetic rendition of a culchie accent. In fact, I seem to recall that there was a research student (from the south) in 97 or 98 who did a job interview with Tha Boord for a laugh, and was offered the job, despite having no Ulster-Scots background. He said that all he did was try to talk with a Ballymena accent.[/quote:7074d9f0f1]

    But it isn't just a different phonetic rendition of a culchie accent, which is why a Tyrone culchies speak in a different way from us North Coast culchies.

    And it doesn't really surprise me because Ballymena is in a geographical area that is within the Ulster Scot 'cultural area'. People fro Ballymena speak in a similar way as people from Ballymoney which in turn speak in a similar way as people from Bushmills. It isn't a coincidence, those are all areas which are traditionally associated with large Protestant populations, which incidentally could often be identified as Ulster Scots.

    The reason why I have gone into this seemingly different conversation is because I think that the inclusion of an Ulster Scots exhibition would help dispell what can only be considered prejudicial and dismissive attitude of some people towards Ulster Scots. Mind you, an exhibition for Irish tradtions and culture in NI would have the same effect so it would be good to have that too.
  66. avatar Danny Lynch
    Sorry, Positive, i didnt mean us to get into this so deeply. I think we're essentially saying thesame thing, but you just have a better way of saying it than me. I think both should be given their dues, but i don't think the museum is the place for this. I think I've been trying to say that, but haven't done so very well. Things like that Ulster Scots place on Great Vic St, and the Culturlann or an Droichead at the bottom of the Ormeau are the right places for such cultural learning. They are current events and issues and so (i know this is a very black and white view of it) arent history, granted there's history behind them, but still maybe aren't best placed in the museum.
    I do agree with whoever said it was a bit of a policy of 'me too' but maybe this was the kick people needed to recognise different cultures. So it wasn't altogether a bad thing.
    I didn't mean to offend you in any way Positive.

    Edit-just to reword that a bit before I get slabbered to for my wording
  67. avatar chris1984_99_99
    Bishop Facks: So, Father. Do you ever have any doubts about the religious life? Is your faith ever tested? Anything you would be worried about? Any doubts you've been having about any aspects of belief? Anything like that?
    Father Dougal: Well, you know the way God made us all, right? And he's looking down at us from heaven and everything?
    Bishop Facks: Uh-huh.
    [nods]
    Father Dougal: And then his son came down and saved everyone and all that?
    Bishop Facks: Yes.
    Father Dougal: And when we die we're all going to go to heaven?
    Bishop Facks: Yes. What about it?
    Father Dougal: Well, that's the bit I have trouble with.

    ;)
  68. avatar BinaryOperator
    HOLY FUCK.

    I was *this* close to getting into a discussion about religion and science. ON THE FUCKING INTERNET.

    JAYSUS! Shocking slip up there. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE WEB IS FOR PEOPLE.

    Now where's all dem nekkid ladie pikchures? Ahh. More like it.
  69. avatar Chi-Lite
    Aye but sure it puts the day in at work when you can't look at the dirty stuff, i'm all for it.
  70. avatar BinaryOperator
    DOWN WITH THAT SORT OF THING!

    :lol: