Sunday, 28 February 2010

The extraordinary eloquence of Mr. Kie O. Pie

The night is gonna be filled with shit talk, jokes, laughter, guitar, walks, heart to hearts, loving, screaming, tittering, giggling, jumping, falling, slapping, cuddling, snorting, drinking, singing, listening, sighing, sitting back in the chair for a second to just go "Aaaaaaah...", dancing, darting, freaking out, freaking in, going out there, suggesting, making mess, cleaning up (metaphorically), toilet runs and holding it in, broad smiles, little smiles, bouncing on the bed and having a well wicked time


Letter to my inner child
We're not so different, you and me
As you stand wide-eyed, meek and mild
And stare

But listen little man, it's the truth, okay?
It's important to me that you know
I never strayed too far from the source
Despite all suggestions to GROW...up.

I still laugh at the word bogey
I still can't fucking dance
I still find people baffling
And find it hard to take a chance
I'm still all these things and more to spare...
But still that accusing stare.

Alright so I've had sex with girls now
I've snorted lines and necked a few pills
I like dance music instead of rock?!
And it's less books - more thrills
As I rampage hedonistically through this world
That used to fill me with awe
My jaded eyes are wide awake,
I've left my wonder at the door

Actually, shit.
Maybe I'm not you any-more.
Not that boy who had a hundred dinosaur magazines
Who could do sums quick as lightning
But couldn't start a conversation to save his life

Maybe I'm really not that kid
Who flew kites in the summer and fell into streams
Grazed his knees habitually
And dreamed impossible dreams

Wednesday, 10 February 2010


[b][c=3]('.') Flowerbie ('.')[/c][/b]
[b][c=3]('.') Flowerbie ('.')[/c][/b]
[b][c=3]('.') Flowerbie ('.')[/c][/b]
[b][c=3]('.') Flowerbie ('.')[/c][/b]
[b][c=3]('.') Flowerbie ('.')[/c][/b]
What are you trying to say about kie's penis abbie? :-O
[b][c=3]('.') Flowerbie ('.')[/c][/b]
its so tiny it cant even fit inside a kitty VV_
[b][c=3]('.') Flowerbie ('.')[/c][/b]
[b][c=3]('.') Flowerbie ('.')[/c][/b]
sorry i had to tell you this
[b][c=3]('.') Flowerbie ('.')[/c][/b]

Sunday, 7 February 2010

Saturday, 6 February 2010

Conversation on the nature of science

I thought I would post a debate I had with another uni student about the nature of science, partly so it doesn't get lost in the churn of the net, and partly so people can look at it and see what they think about the the issue and all that. Here it is. :)

SAM: I would like to call into question the idea of 'scientific fact' ...

Plus, belief in a God, Gods, etc. is perfectly okay, as much as belief in any 'ideal'. It's organised religion, not some unknown quantity, which is the enemy.

Most of us, I'm not including Richard in this, tend to believe what we're told by 'scientists'. I'll be fucked if any of us actually understand what's happening. It's ridiculous to condemn belief in a deity or deities and then prop up science that it has 'facts' - the theories behind science are being revised, updated, changed all the time. And, do... See more you REALLY understand what quantum physics is, how the world works, or are you just taking what you're told and choosing to believing it? Also, you seem to be implying that deity/deities is purely a humanoid, rather than a dimensional, spiritual, or even scientific thing. And also forgetting that, a lot of the basis of our understand of our world has come out of people trying to prove God right, or real.

ME: Believing what scientists say isn't the same as just accepting what you're told, because what scientists say isn't arbitrary; it's logical conjecture based on a method that has shown itself to be reliable. The scientific method works. It objectively works. If it didn't, you wouldn't be on a computer, and planes would be crashing all around us. Or never taking off.

That's not to imply that it's completely infallible. But it's inaccurate to say that scientific theories change all the time, as if it were all a massive flux of equally valid ideas. A lot of the big theoretical stuff has stuck - Newtonian physics, despite not being the most perfect description of reality now that we have relativity and QM, is still basically spot on if you're dealing with ordinary things instead of sub-atomic particles. That's been around since the 17th century. The fact that science expands, updates and revises is a strength, not a weakness.

You imply that logic is logical ...
If you prayed to a God about the same time every year that something would grow and be ready to harvest every year, it would prove God. Now as a scientist, one could go into detail, but as lay peeps, we just accept that it happens for whatever reason we're told. :P

Also, I gave a list of things that scientific ... See moreidea's can be doing: "revised, updated, changed", not just "changed". And no one ever said science was bad, I'm attacking the use and the claim of it (despite doing it myself) in everyday occurrence without knowing what we're talking about.
Also, eugenics. What a great, non-arbitrary thing that was/is.

No it wouldn't prove god, because you wouldn't have used the scientific method - you wouldn't have isolated your variables. You'd need to pray at different times of the year and see if you got food to make it scientific. This is the classic rule that correlation doesn't equal causation. Like someone made that graph showing that as the number of pirates had gone down over the centuries, global temperature had gone up, so pirates were needed to stop global warming. =p

Well, often we can know what we're talking about scientifically without having technical training. I could explain evolution to you pretty satisfactorily, and why it's true, and I'm a pile of shit at science.

Eugenics was a political issue, not an "is science reliable" issue.

SAM: The theory of Eugenics was based around the theory of evolution: selective breeding (and killing). Note the word theory. Also, note the world of 'theoretical science', if you please, whilst we're at it. It was political, yes, but it was based around a scientific idea. And, anyway, theories such as evolution were amazingly political for their time, undermining the institutions that said how the world works. Same with the Earth going round the Sun. They're not mutually exclusive: these theories have political and social repercussions.

Plus, you're still using the 'experiment' to prove something, whilst I'm arguing that people take scientists word for it. Ergo, someone says eugenics is workable and, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Hitler say "okay, yes."

The sun goes around the Earth.

ME: Well saying that eugenics was based on the theory of evolution is about as useful as saying that hanging was based on the theory of gravity. You can't blame science for finding out the truth if that truth is then abused. It was politicians, not the scientific method, that created eugenics. Science deals with what is; philosophy and politics deal with what ought to be, and eugenics is a 'what ought to be' idea. Noticing that genetic traits which help us survive and reproduce naturally get passed on more than ones that don't is science. Saying that we ought to fiddle about with people's genes to create a master race is politics. Interestingly, Darwin actually explicitly warned against the social Darwinism idea that we should try to eliminate the genetically weak in society.

I agree with you that scientific theories can have repercussions outside of the scientific sphere. Clearly evolution and heliocentric ideas re-defined how we view our place in the universe. But what you were saying is that eugenics is an example of an arbitrary idea coming from science; it isn't. Nowhere did Darwin start saying let's genetically create a master race. And even if he had, it would have been a political idea he was expressing, not a scientific one. It's an arbitrary idea coming from racist politicians.

As for taking the scientists word for it - this is effectively the same as trusting in the explanatory power of the experiment, because that's what scientists do. They don't just make shit up. It doesn't mean taking what they say and assuming that it's some kind of revealed final truth on a matter - scientists themselves don't pretend that they have that kind of authority - but it does mean accepting that this is probably our best guess at the time, and at the moment there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt it.

They don't make shit up ... hmm ... as I mentioned, theoretical science is theory, it is not yet cohesively proven or completely disproven. String theory. Therefore, as there is theoretical science, science doesn't necessarily just deal with 'what is' but the also theory of 'what ought to be', or could be. Jesus, poor bloody quantum physisits who only deal 'with is': isn't that part of the problem? What appears isn't necessarily what is, was or will be.

Eugenics wasn't just politics, it was based in the theory of natural selection, a scientific theory. It was originated by a polymath called Francis Galton, who was a bit of a scientist. He, according to Wikipedia, coined the phrase 'Nature vs nuture'. It was a scientific idea with political implications ... like all scientific theory.

Phrenology, too. That was a fantastic bloody science. It is amazing discredited, but it was right popular for a while a way back. I'm also informed by a scientist friend of mine that particle science is running out of space to work, too.

ME: I don't mean to be flippant, but you're just repeating the content of your last post. I have already responded to all of those arguments.

1. If something isn't 'cohesively proven', it will not be presented as such by scientists. Problem solved. If it is, it will be. Problem solved again. As Richard pointed out, it's very rare that anything misleading would survive peer review. I said words to this effect last post - they don't just make shit up.

2. Social Darwinism is a political idea. Galton's idea was political. The fact that it referenced a scientific theory doesn't mean it was the fault of science, any more than hanging people was the fault of the science of gravity.... See more

3. Phrenology was a pseudo-science, and the advocates of it basically did not use the scientific method when saying that the shape of your head was directly connected with your personality. It didn't last very long in the grand scheme of things, and it wouldn't survive peer-review nowadays.

SAM: All I have to say, is question everything all the time. It's the only way to be almost confident that you don't know anything, or at least much.

Friday, 5 February 2010

First poetry slam.

Went well! :) I came 5th out of 14, and the people who beat me were fucking sick so I feel no shame. Tbh I'm quite surprised I wasn't somewhere more around 10th or 12th, it was such a high standard there. So yeah, chuffed. :D And a poet I think is amazing told me afterwards that she really liked my poem, I can't even really remember my response, I expect I flustered out a thank you and looked a tit, but hey ho. =p

I also got to say, on stage, referring to Margaret Thatcher, "lets hope the bitch dies soon." Which received laughs, scattered applause, a gasp or two... win. haha.

So... hmm. Target. Win one before I leave Uni? Yeah? Too ambitious, too modest? We shall see. Next one March the 11th. ^^

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

Tim Minchin - Storm


Inner North London, top floor flat
All white walls, white carpet, white cat,
Rice Paper partitions
Modern art and ambition
The host’s a physician,
Lovely bloke, has his own practice
His girlfriend’s an actress
An old mate from home
And they’re always great fun.
So to dinner we’ve come.

The fifth guest is an unknown,
The hosts have just thrown
Us together for a favor
because this girl’s just arrived from Australia
And has moved to North London
And she’s the sister of someone
Or has some connection.

As we make introductions
I’m struck by her beauty
She’s irrefutably fair
With dark eyes and dark hair
But as she sits
I admit I’m a little bit wary
because I notice the tip of the wing of a fairy
Tattooed on that popular area
Just above the derrière
And when she says “I’m Sagittarian”
I confess a pigeonhole starts to form
And is immediately filled with pigeon
When she says her name is Storm.

Chatter is initially bright and light-hearted
But it’s not long before Storm gets started:
“You can’t know anything,
Knowledge is merely opinion”
She opines, over her Cabernet
Some un-hippily
Empirical comment by me

“Not a good start” I think
We’re only on pre-dinner drinks
And across the room, my wife
Widens her eyes
Silently begs me, Be Nice
A matrimonial warning
Not worth ignoring
So I resist the urge to ask Storm
Whether knowledge is so loose-weave
Of a morning
When deciding whether to leave
Her apartment by the front door
Or a window on the second floor.

The food is delicious and Storm,
Whilst avoiding all meat
Happily sits and eats
While the good doctor, slightly pissedly
Holds court on some anachronistic aspect of medical history
When Storm suddenly she insists
“But the human body is a mystery!
Science just falls in a hole
When it tries to explain the the nature of the soul.”

My hostess throws me a glance
She, like my wife, knows there’s a chance
That I’ll be off on one of my rants
But my lips are sealed.
I just want to enjoy my meal
And although Storm is starting to get my goat
I have no intention of rocking the boat,
Although it’s becoming a bit of a wrestle
Because – like her meteorological namesake -
Storm has no such concerns for our vessel:

“Pharmaceutical companies are the enemy
They promote drug dependency
At the cost of the natural remedies
That are all our bodies need
They are immoral and driven by greed.
Why take drugs
When herbs can solve it?
Why use chemicals
When homeopathic solvents
Can resolve it?
It’s time we all return-to-live
With natural medical alternatives.”

And try as hard as I like,
A small crack appears
In my diplomacy-dike.
“By definition”, I begin
“Alternative Medicine”, I continue
“Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call “alternative medicine”
That’s been proved to work?

“So you don’t believe
In ANY Natural remedies?”

“On the contrary actually:
Before we came to tea,
I took a natural remedy
Derived from the bark of a willow tree
A painkiller that’s virtually side-effect free
It’s got a weird name,
Darling, what was it again?
Which I paid about a buck for
Down at my local drugstore.

The debate briefly abates
As our hosts collects plates
but as they return with desserts
Storm pertly asserts,

“Shakespeare said it first:
There are more things in heaven and earth
Than exist in your philosophy…
Science is just how we’re trained to look at reality,
It can’t explain love or spirituality.
How does science explain psychics?
Auras; the afterlife; the power of prayer?”

I’m becoming aware
That I’m staring,
I’m like a rabbit suddenly trapped
In the blinding headlights of vacuous crap.
Maybe it’s the Hamlet she just mis-quothed
Or the eighth glass of wine I just quaffed
But my diplomacy dike groans
And the arsehole held back by its stones
Can be held back no more:

“Look , Storm, I don’t mean to bore you
But there’s no such thing as an aura!
Reading Auras is like reading minds
Or star-signs or tea-leaves or meridian lines
These people aren’t plying a skill,
They are either lying or mentally ill.
Same goes for those who claim to hear God’s demands
And Spiritual healers who think they have magic hands.

By the way,
Why is it OK
For people to pretend they can talk to the dead?
Is it not totally fucked in the head
Lying to some crying woman whose child has died
And telling her you’re in touch with the other side?
That’s just fundamentally sick
Do we need to clarify that there’s no such thing as a psychic?
What, are we fucking 2?
Do we actually think that Horton Heard a Who?
Do we still think that Santa brings us gifts?
That Michael Jackson hasn’t had facelifts?
Are we still so stunned by circus tricks
That we think that the dead would
Wanna talk to pricks
Like John Edward?

Storm to her credit despite my derision
Keeps firing off clichés with startling precision
Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition

“You’re so sure of your position
But you’re just closed-minded
I think you’ll find
Your faith in Science and Tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalist”

“Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I’ll spin on a fucking dime
I’ll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I’ve recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”

Everyone’s just staring at me now,
But I’m pretty pissed and I’ve dug this far down,
So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:

“Life is full of mysteries, yeah,
But there are answers out there
And they won’t be found
By people sitting around
Looking serious
And saying isn’t life mysterious?
Let’s sit here and hope
Let’s call up the fucking Pope
Let’s go watch Oprah
Interview Deepak Chopra

If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
That show was so cool
because every time there’s a church with a ghoul
Or a ghost in a school
They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the water-slide.
Throughout history
Every mystery
EVER solved has turned out to be
Not Magic.

Does the idea that there might be truth
Frighten you?
Does the idea that one afternoon
On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
Frighten you?
Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
So blow your hippy noodle
That you would rather just stand in the fog
Of your inability to Google?

Isn’t this enough?
Just this world?
Just this beautiful, complex
Wonderfully unfathomable world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
If you’re so into Shakespeare
Lend me your ear:
“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet… is just fucking silly”
Or something like that.
Or what about Satchmo?!
I see trees of Green,
Red roses too,
And fine, if you wish to
Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
In a post-colonial, condescending
Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
That’s ok.
But here’s what gives me a hard-on:
I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
I have one life, and it is short
And unimportant…
But thanks to recent scientific advances
I get to live twice as long as my great great great great uncles and auntses.
Twice as long to live this life of mine
Twice as long to love this wife of mine
Twice as many years of friends and wine
Of sharing curries and getting shitty
With good-looking hippies
With fairies on their spines
And butterflies on their titties.

And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We’d as well be 10 minutes back in time,
For all the chance you’ll change your mind.