|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
"People love it when you're topical" George Carlin
That was funny DJ
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: No Bias. Really? |
|
|
| SDR wrote: |
"It is thus as I said, we conform our observations according to the pre-disposed views we have. This is a natural human characteristic, and there is no way to avoid it." [ArchiMotion]
My response: "I know you are, but what am I ?" This statement, directed at "science" by "religion," is a hoot. . .
George Carlin just left the planet. Here's something I found in a news article:
"The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things — bad language and whatever — it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition," Carlin told the AP in a 2004 interview. "There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have." |
No bias? --->>
http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -.com/content/view/1613/
The ‘Big picture’
| Quote: | The most important point to remember, more important than the chemistry, is that both creationists and evolutionists have biases. For the people who performed the research, the Nature editors, and the journalists who reported the results, the question was not ‘Did life evolve from non-life?’ Neither were they trying to find evidence to support either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Rather, before even adducing the evidence, they have already made up their minds that the answer is ‘yes’—somewhat along these lines:
‘Well, of course life evolved from non-life, because we’re here! … What’s that you suggest … that life may have been designed? You just don’t understand the rules of science. A designer is not part of science, even if the evidence supports that, as Dr Scott Todd pointed out. As Dr Richard Lewontin said, we must only allow materialistic explanations, because we can’t allow “a divine foot in the door”.’
This faith commitment has been noticed even by non-creationists such as the information theorist Dr Hubert Yockey, as shown by this quote.
This bias produces much wishful thinking, where every trace of organic molecules found is taken as evidence for chemical evolution. |
.............See article for much more info.................
.....Conclusion
| Quote: | | Once again, this teaches us that we shouldn’t rely on pro-evolution newspaper headlines. As always, even if they have reported the scientific observations correctly, the observations must be interpreted. As shown, it is more plausible to interpret them in a Biblical creationist framework and apply well-attested chemical principles. The result is that not only do the observations provide no support for chemical evolution, they are actually further evidence that chemical evolution is based on blind faith rather than fact. |
More links and info in main design community post --->>
http://www.designcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20854&start=15&sid=87a57ad1028e0b4c818dda066baf3cf6
and on the reference to George Carlin, SDR, I think we can do better then that now, come on -->>
| Quote: | So tell me, is this what this George Carlin all about ? --->> "is there more rape at the equator or at the North Pole?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3av_qRR_DWc&NR=1
Come on man, what type of freaky humor is this?
Some people are stupid, ya, right. Don't have to go very far in these videos to see that.
Got another good one for us ?
Take care ya, be careful with your stuff. Someone might want it too.
Smile
Have a nice day. Am make sure you have a good one before ya get where it's pretty hot. |
Now who is all this coming from? The master of FFF. Not that is not Form Follows Function. It is the big F word follows a Big F mind -->>
| Quote: | Hey, guess what - was just thinking that. Stupid jokes follow stupid thinking. Eureka. We are on to something. The form of the jokes follows the function of the thinking. Or is it the function of the thinking follows into the form of the jokes? It is as you said, "stupid is as stupid does". I guess we have just dis-proved FFF. Or is that the big F word follows the "F" mind, which functions to "F" everything. We have now three F's all in one! Or is it the Freaken F mind produces it's own F function. F mind = F function = F form. We now have a rule of thumb.
Hey Captain Hook, I hope you bring home a lot of shrimp with you in your boat. And make sure they are nice and fried before you serve 'em. Don't even need to add any oil in the frying pan down there.... just some "rock and roll", a little "soul" and you have a pretty hot bunch in your ship.
Avoir un beau jour. |
So now is this the type of thinking architects are advocating? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 849
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| csintexas wrote: | "People love it when you're topical" George Carlin
That was funny DJ |
Thanks Cris. and thank you for always insightful knowledge.
#1) have fun, and few other things.
I endorse humor in architecture, as a replacement for _________.
You have to "call it out" when you see it, everytime or nothing will change. When science and religion start argeeing on an armegeggon, things will really get scary, but I'm just guessing.
Off to read the "Art of War"
Derek
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1155
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
"When science and religion start agreeing on an armaggedon" ......
Dr. Strangelove was shown recently on French television - have you seen it recently ? It used to be hilarious, but today it is seriously scary.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room !"
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 849
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Haut wrote: | "When science and religion start agreeing on an armaggedon" ......
Dr. Strangelove was shown recently on French television - have you seen it recently ? It used to be hilarious, but today it is seriously scary.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room !" |
Thank you Richard, That is wisdom I can except the terms of.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ARC1TEC
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: ORIGINAL QUESTION |
|
|
Did you notice the original question form follows function was answered and the original person asking the question never returned?
Frank lloyd wright was an amazing person as well as architect.
I maintain that form follows function means that the shape of a buildings parts, ie. room size, proportion, detail etc... is dictated by the function of the building as a whole. The theory stems from utilitarian philosophy, that where something is useful then it is good. Any superfluity such as ornament or decoration is only worthwhile when it benefits the function of the building. In the case of FLW there is a certain spirituality connected to his personal philosophy of what is good. This runs contradictory to utilitarian ideology which is secular rather than religious.
Do FLW buildings stand up to his claim that form follows function. I don't think they do. When you look at buildings by later architects such as Corbusier or Mies then I think you will agree that theirs look more utilitarian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think "looks" are necessarily a good indicator of how well something performs. Although I would agree a cheetah looks fast. Is that because we know a cheetah is fast or because we know what the characteristics of speed entail? -Maybe a bit of both.
Can we really do this with architecture? Particularly if (for example) we only have one view?
Do Corbusier or Mies buildings actually perform better than FLW's?
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
