Posts by Lucy Stewart

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Southerly: Phar Lap and Me,

    I think a regular column of "Paula's Tips" would be very well received.

    We have one already, surely: Respect The Process.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Field Theory: In the middle of the night,

    With this new season of Lost my partner and I have declined downloading the latest episode and are watching it the "old" way. It's an interesting experience, having to be somewhere with a TV at a certain time on a certain day.

    I really enjoy doing this with some programmes - it gives you something to look forward to, and some structure to the day. I'm actually way more likely to keep up with stuff I'm watching on TV than something I can watch any time, because if I can do it any time I never get round to it; if it's on at a particular time, I have to remember it.

    (As for the noise-at-3am issue - my mum made my dad buy headphones with an extra-long-cord, to solve this very problem. Which only works if you're watching alone.)

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Up Front: Boobs!,

    Being a modestly (pun intended) sized woman (that means I'm in the same league as Keira Knightly, and I will be exceedingly RUDE to anyone who tries to commiserate with me about it, because actually, I'm very happy with my body), showing cleavage is a little ineffective, if not actually impossible. But I'm thinking tight jeans, and a lacy-is-it-see-through-or-isn't-it-and-perhaps-if-you-look-a-bit-harder-you-might-be-able-to-work-it-out-possibly-just-before-you-realise-that-it's-not-the-done-thing-to-go-around-staring-at-women's-breasts close fitting top, showing every proudly-earned post-baby roll.

    This really makes me think, because when I've heard discussions of this I automatically assume "dressing revealingly" = "low-cut top" and/or "short skirt". And as low-cut tops are deeply impractical for my work/commute and I very very rarely wear skirts (and don't *own* any above knee-length, I'm pretty sure), I wasn't planning on participating.

    But that, of course, is an assumption. And shows just how much mainstream discourse on women's dress gets focused on Teh Boobies and the revelation, or not, thereof. Followed closely by skirt/trouser length, even though a tight pair of jeans displays a lot more than most miniskirts ever do.

    So I think that tomorrow it's my most clinging pair of trousers and figure-revealing t-shirt, for what that's worth - and thanks, Deborah, for reminding me to check my assumptions at the door.

    She thought that it was "playing into the menz hands etc"

    Because if we put on a free show they won't be enticed by our charming feminine mystique into marriage, right, girls? And that would be TRAGEDY.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Southerly: The Problem With Religion,

    I notice you don't acknowledge that they're also a hugely important part of science, at least the history thereof. Why is that?

    Because religion *qua religion* is not part of modern science. Which isn't to say that religious people aren't or haven't been scientists or that, historically, science and religion have not intermingled - just that modern science doesn't have a place for faith-based thinking and it shouldn't have to.

    And if you're going to posit that there are "other ways" of doing science which are perhaps better, then posit them. "There are better ways of doing science but you're too blinkered to think of them" is not an argument.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Up Front: Time for an Intervention,

    That's true, actually. I know a lot of people I like from Timaru, but I can't think of anyone i like in Timaru.

    I know a guy who moved to Timaru to work. He had a computer engineering degree.

    Yes, bemused silence is the usual response to that revelation.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Southerly: The Problem With Religion,

    It seems to me that other kinds of science are possible than the kind that Westerners came up with.

    Like....what? Because as far as providing us with testable pieces of information about the world goes, the basic methods of modern science is pretty much where it's at. That isn't to say that they're always done perfectly, but the principle (hypothesise, test, record observations, discard/don't discard hypothesis) is sound.

    But they are actually quite a small proportion of people in the world, and their way of thinking is actually pretty peculiar. The rest of humanity may very well appreciate something a little more inclusive, and I think the rising distrust of speaking in the name of science derives from this.

    Or maybe because it's to the advantage of a lot of people for science to be discredited. Scientific thinking is really not that peculiar, or even difficult.

    Indeed, a great many people of scientific bent would rather than children were taught nothing about religion at all.

    Actually, I believe most scientists are strongly in favour of children being taught about religion. All religions. I absolutely am - they're a hugely important part of history, society, and culture. I'm just not in favour of children being taught that one particular religion is inherently true. There's something of a difference there.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Southerly: The Problem With Religion,

    I used to buttonhole religious door knockers and involve them in theological arguments (being the son of a reasonably liberal Presbyterian minister has its advantages every now and again) - but the fun's sort of gone out that, it's too easy.

    I'm married to a man who was thisclose to being an Independent Baptist preacher before he had a crisis of logic and got atheism (to the extent that he has been known to criticise Dawkins as too nice.) He regards door-knockers as generally too theologically ill-trained to be good sport.

    No, I mean more that either/or thinking probably sped science along it's path. It's the strange paradox that only by being wrong most of the time can we hope to actually be right some of the time. If we insist on being right all the time, we discover nothing, and end up just staying wrong.

    There is a strongly advanced argument that Western Christianity and its attempts to find truth through reason (Aquinas et al.) were fundamentally necessary for the development of modern science, to the extent that it would not have developed in a different culture. I don't know if I agree with this entirely, because there's a strong element of cultural superiority to the whole argument which largely ignores scientific development in non-Western areas, but the case can be made.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Up Front: Time for an Intervention,

    Not my experience, either. About half the people I know in Chch grew up here, about half didn't.

    About half the people I know in Christchurch are from Blenheim. Which isn't hard to understand.

    Then again, my current boss grew up in, went to university in, and now works in Christchurch - that'd do my head in, but apparently some people want to spend their entire lives in the same city. Even when that city is Christchurch.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Up Front: Time for an Intervention,

    Islander, I am endeared by every letter you write, but disagree as you choose to only look to the establishment for recognition and acceptance.

    Without wishing to speak for Islander, I'd say sometimes the point isn't that you need recognition from the establishment, but what the lack of recognision *says* about the establishment. And when the establishment runs the place, well...it's worth taking that into account when deciding if you want to live there.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

  • Hard News: Climate science and the media,

    The CRI review is about backing out of the accursed contestible model and returning to long-term funding of science, and losing the idea that CRIs are somehow supposed to compete with each other as businesses. Their role will now be to support their sectors, rather than compete with them.

    It's been evident for a long time that this was a deeply flawed model, and the current government deserves credit for commissioning the review and acting on it swiftly. As Bart says, no more money, but hopefully the money will be better spent.

    And yes, the losers from the change are probably the universities.

    More specifically: those who are research-only staff at universities, whose livelihoods are dependent year-to-year on the grants they can get. Less money floating around, more people dropping out of research altogether - and there's a lot less money floating around right now, and maybe less, if more goes to the CRIs.

    (And the thing is: it's *sensible* to give the CRIs more long-term funding. It just sucks for everyone else.)

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report

Last ←Newer Page 1 107 108 109 110 111 211 Older→ First