Heaven & Hell Thread. Naw, Just Fecking Hell.

[oaksoft]

42 minutes ago, FTOF said:

They reckon that the reason why cells with exactly the same genes produce different characteristics is down to transcription factors and the process of alternative RNA splicing. The latter process allows different forms of proteins - isoforms - to be produced by the same gene. It has been found that this process occurs far more frequently than previously believed. Studies of transcription factors have pretty much been limited due to constraints in the technology required to study it. However, the evidence obtained points towards the action of transcription factors collecting and processing information available to embryonic cells and directing them down a specific developmental pathway. Although, I find in depth reading about transcription factors and their workings makes my head hurt.

That sounds a pretty promising direction for me to read up on then.

As for the bit in bold, once you get into the guts of serious research I think that is something everyone feels. I can't remember a time when I read any academic paper and thought "f**k me that was a joyous/trivial read" . Part of that is the difficulty of the subject but a large part of it for me is the completely unnecessary jargon and archaic language used. Scientists are supposed to be expert communicators. You'd never believe that though.

Anyway, time for me to start reading up.

[FTOF]

26 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

You think everything they get taught is - we know everything right?

You don't appear to have answered my question.

I'll answer yours though.

In my field, science, everything that is taught in the curriculum, is backed up by reliable and robust scientific research using the technology that is available to the scientists doing the research. There will be occasions, as technology advances, that the science behind certain processes will become more complete and therefore more factually accurate. 

So, yes, everything the pupils are taught in the Scottish curriculum in Science is correct. I can't speak for other subjects, but I can't imagine that pupils are being taught the "wrong" maths or history, or the wrong modern language.

Also, I'm not aware of anything that pupils are taught that is not good for their development. Maybe you could enlighten me as to what they are being taught that isn't good.

[FTOF]

4 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

That sounds a pretty promising direction for me to read up on then.

As for the bit in bold, once you get into the guts of serious research I think that is something everyone feels. I can't remember a time when I read any academic paper and thought "f**k me that was a joyous/trivial read" . Part of that is the difficulty of the subject but a large part of it for me is the completely unnecessary jargon and archaic language used. Scientists are supposed to be expert communicators. You'd never believe that though.

Anyway, time for me to start reading up.

The abbreviations that they give the transcription factors don't help, as you will no doubt find out.😵

[oaksoft]

8 minutes ago, FTOF said:

You don't appear to have answered my question.

I'll answer yours though.

In my field, science, everything that is taught in the curriculum, is backed up by reliable and robust scientific research using the technology that is available to the scientists doing the research. There will be occasions, as technology advances, that the science behind certain processes will become more complete and therefore more factually accurate. 

So, yes, everything the pupils are taught in the Scottish curriculum in Science is correct. I can't speak for other subjects, but I can't imagine that pupils are being taught the "wrong" maths or history, or the wrong modern language.

Also, I'm not aware of anything that pupils are taught that is not good for their development. Maybe you could enlighten me as to what they are being taught that isn't good.

I would add a caveat to that bit in bold.

It is sometimes necessary to teach kids a model which has been superceded, without necessarily telling them.

A great example is in Chemistry where to my knowledge they are not taught much if anything about atomic or molecular orbitals and are still taught things like the octet rule as the norm rather than the exception (this may have changed TBF). It can leave kids thinking that electrons orbit the nucleus which is not ideal at all. The reality is though, that their maths is not well enough refined at that age to go into much depth. I guess in Physics you also don't get much quantum mechanics or relativity for similar reasons.

It's not that kids are being lied to but education is like peeling an onion and maths is the knife to allow more detail to emerge.

Probably more could be done to explain what a scientific model is to kids. That will help them appreciate why they are taught one thing this year (Rutherford model) and then something else later on (molecular orbital theory).

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by oaksoft

[Russian Saint]

After a dodgy start, this is s very interesting thread.

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Surely a sphere would appear as a circle in 2 dimensions (increasing in size and then decreasing) rather than a line.

 

 

No because you would lack the 3rd dimension to see the circle from above. You would only be able to look sideways or up/down on the paper.

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Eh?

The visible spectrum is, by definition, the part if the spectrum that we can see. If we could detect a different part on the spectrum then that would be the "visible spectrum"

Objects also reflect light in parts of the spectrum that we can't see, that's why, to a bird, a crow looks brightly multicoloured while a parrot is quite dull and uninteresting. How do animals that see in different parts of the spectrum to us (or are colour blind) avoid bumping into stuff?

On a similar not, it's quite probable that none of us even perceive colours in the exact same way. Your green might be my blue. We both think that grass is green (normally) but that is just a name, it doesn't mean that our brains are portraying that wavelength in the same way. I probably haven't explained that very well.
 

 

 

Yes but our eyes can only detect visible light so if objects absorbed all visible light and only reflected non- visible light, we'd be bumping into objects all the time.

As for your last bit, I have always wondered if my blue is the same as your blue. What if you were seeing green but had been taught that this was blue from childhood? Creepy thought.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

24 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

Yes but our eyes can only detect visible light so if objects absorbed all visible light and only reflected non- visible light, we'd be bumping into objects all the time.

As for your last bit, I have always wondered if my blue is the same as your blue. What if you were seeing green but had been taught that this was blue from childhood? Creepy thought.

Much prefer none colour something like black and white.  However sometimes many see colour is that so wrong ? Humans are a complex species it ain't going to stop over night.  As long as you try not to offend others. Times are changing especially in the Christian world less believe.  I know a couple of Christians who are wonderful people that's fine and good. In the real world not computer land would like to think I am a good person who will help others. Anyway football is coming on . Night night. 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Regarding visualising how multi dimensional objects appear to those who exist in a world with fewer dimensions, here's book tip.

Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions by Edwin Abbott

It's an old and flimsy little book, available for a couple of quid, but does a great job of cleverly explaining the above, against the backdrop of also being a satire on the classes, and gender too.

[djchapsticks]

6 hours ago, Sweeper07 said:

Lots of opinions shared - too many points to answer without it be 20 times as long as your essay... it's not a cop out - you have stated your position and you are ok having a swipe at Christians and presuming things which are NOT TRUE... investigate it further and be sure what you believe is right...

ALL people, religious and otherwise do harm to others...(we live in a fallen world) but you cannot EARN your way into eternity - it is a free gift for ALL who truly want it - to want it you need to actually hear about what is on offer and what that means for you personally...

I have been incredibly lucky to see many people turning their lives around completely - because someone cared for them, accepted them and told them why they cared so much. Many others did not want to explore God further - their choice, but I can think of none who did not want the missing bit of the "life jigsaw", who went looking and did not find it... you can make your own choice, so if I am actually right (Which you very strongly doubt), do you think Christians should not try to help people to find the missing piece in their lives?  Everyone has a cross shaped hole in their hearts - ONLY JESUS can fill it... the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not in the denial that it is a pudding...

Your belief system is your own to do with what you will but in this relatively enlightened age, please understand how much of an absolute cultist you come across as with this preachy, insincere and archetypal representation of spirituality. I don't have a 'cross shaped hole in my heart', to my dying breath I will know that there is nothing there that needs to be fulfilled by any religious character and to be honest, the generalisation that people can only be be fulfilled by finding Jesus is as laughably inaccurate as it is insulting.

I'm of the absolute firm and unwavering belief that religion has caused far, far more harm to the progress of humanity than it has benefited it.

And please, don't take this as me saying specifically that 'christians = bad', this is me saying 'religion = bad'. Christians, though, are absolutely included in that group.

Edited August 17, 2019 by djchapsticks

[antrin]

 

4 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Surely a sphere would appear as a circle in 2 dimensions (increasing in size and then decreasing) rather than a line.
 

 

It depends on the initial perspective ( which  2 dimensions). you assume.  Somehow I’d assumed as what oxter did. We’d see the side of the circle grow, diminish....  vanish.

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

No because you would lack the 3rd dimension to see the circle from above. You would only be able to look sideways or up/down on the paper.

I feel that a mere 2 dimensions does not necessarily preclude visibility from a specific direction like above or sideways.  It will be flat and lack another dimension, whether that be height or depth etc.  Perspective would be key....

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

If my blue is the same as your blue. What if you were seeing green but had been taught that this was blue from childhood? Creepy thought.

That would generate even more confused bigot buttock fans than there already is.

[antrin]

5 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Now go read my later reply to him. It's all over the place and raises more questions than it answers.

 

Maybe in the morning....

 

ok 

 

 

much later on today...

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Much prefer none colour something like black and white.  However sometimes many see colour is that so wrong ? Humans are a complex species it ain't going to stop over night.  As long as you try not to offend others. Times are changing especially in the Christian world less believe.  I know a couple of Christians who are wonderful people that's fine and good. In the real world not computer land would like to think I am a good person who will help others. Anyway football is coming on . Night night. 

If there is a more joyous sight in BAWA land than IOBS on the first day of the Shrooming season then by all means let me hear it. Another classic tonight.

[Wendy Saintss]

They reckon that the reason why cells with exactly the same genes produce different characteristics is down to transcription factors and the process of alternative RNA splicing. The latter process allows different forms of proteins - isoforms - to be produced by the same gene. It has been found that this process occurs far more frequently than previously believed. Studies of transcription factors have pretty much been limited due to constraints in the technology required to study it. However, the evidence obtained points towards the action of transcription factors collecting and processing information available to embryonic cells and directing them down a specific developmental pathway. Although, I find in depth reading about transcription factors and their workings makes my head hurt.

^^^^ pretending to be intelligent

Nobody’s falling for it

What a cunt [emoji1][emoji106]

[oaksoft]

30 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Now go read my later reply to him. It's all over the place and raises more questions than it answers.

 

I will also respond in the morning when my brain can absorb what you've posted. 🍾

[oaksoft]

1 minute ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

^^^^ pretending to be intelligent

Nobody’s falling for it

What a c**t

 

I suspect that you are feeling lost in the discussion and this attention seeking twattery is your way of coping.

Either add some original intelligent content to the discussion or identify a single intellectual flaw in his argument and prove me wrong.

[Wendy Saintss]

I suspect that you are feeling lost in the discussion and this attention seeking twattery is your way of coping.
Either add some original intelligent content to the discussion or identify a single intellectual flaw in his argument and prove me wrong.

I’ve enjoyed the posts on this thread.

My intention was just to be abusive to FTOF.

He’s a twat. [emoji106]

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

I’ve enjoyed the posts on this thread.

My intention was just to be abusive to FTOF.

He’s a twat.

 

I enjoyed my moment of pomposity.

It was brief but beautiful.

[stlucifer]

10 hours ago, oaksoft said:

 

Yes but our eyes can only detect visible light so if objects absorbed all visible light and only reflected non- visible light, we'd be bumping into objects all the time.

As for your last bit, I have always wondered if my blue is the same as your blue. What if you were seeing green but had been taught that this was blue from childhood? Creepy thought.

No need for creepy thoughts concerning your last sentence Oaksoft.

IF he were taught your green was blue and vice versa one of you would be telling everyone you were watching Saints on blue grass. Not just seeing blue stands next week.

 

Edited August 18, 2019 by stlucifer

[djchapsticks]

7 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

No need for creepy thoughts concerning your last sentence Oaksoft.

IF he were taught your green was blue and vice versa one of you would be telling everyone you were watching Saints on blue grass. Not just seeing blue stands next week.

 

No you wouldn't, you'd still say the grass was green as you'd believe that what your eyes are perceiving is green. 

Even though your perception of the colour would be completely different to how everyone else sees it. 

[stlucifer]

4 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

No you wouldn't, you'd still say the grass was green as you'd believe that what your eyes are perceiving is green. 

Even though your perception of the colour would be completely different to how everyone else sees it. 

Not in the instance described by Oaksoft. IF one was told the colour, which both see the same, was blue and one was told it was green then  you would have the scenario I mentioned. It would be nothing to do with perception.

 

ETA. I did get one thing wrong though. One of them would see the stands filled with green scum.

Edited August 18, 2019 by stlucifer

[FTOF]

14 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I would add a caveat to that bit in bold.

It is sometimes necessary to teach kids a model which has been superceded, without necessarily telling them.

A great example is in Chemistry where to my knowledge they are not taught much if anything about atomic or molecular orbitals and are still taught things like the octet rule as the norm rather than the exception (this may have changed TBF). It can leave kids thinking that electrons orbit the nucleus which is not ideal at all. The reality is though, that their maths is not well enough refined at that age to go into much depth. I guess in Physics you also don't get much quantum mechanics or relativity for similar reasons.

It's not that kids are being lied to but education is like peeling an onion and maths is the knife to allow more detail to emerge.

Probably more could be done to explain what a scientific model is to kids. That will help them appreciate why they are taught one thing this year (Rutherford model) and then something else later on (molecular orbital theory).

 

Indeed. technology is moving at such a fast rate that the curriculum can't possibly keep up. However, I do my best to keep pupils up to date regarding developments in the areas that they are learning. The fact that so much of Biology can be related to every day life makes my job a bit easier.

Also, as you mention, different levels require different levels of detail. At N5 level pupils are taught that each gene produces a specific protein. However, at Higher level, we introduce the idea of alternative RNA transcription and subsequent alternative splicing. i.e. from one gene - several proteins. Most N5 pupils find the basics of protein transcription quite challenging. To introduce alternative splicing would be a step too far. 

It's a natural learning process, and I always make a point of informing pupils that much of the material we teach them is far more complex than what the curriculum requires them to learn and understand. I find that it helps to give them a sense of perspective ,when I show them the complete details of the process of DNA replication, compared to what they are required to learn at the specific level they are being presented at.

 

[FTOF]

8 hours ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

^^^^ pretending to be intelligent

Nobody’s falling for it

What a c**t

 

Jealous because we got the intelligent genes.

Fucking bellend. 

[FTOF]

7 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

I was fine following this up to the N5, wit the fcuk is that?

School was so much easier before, 1st & 2nd years learn a bit before choosing some subjects to study for O grades in 3rd and 4th years. 5th year, sir your Highers and resit any O grades. 6th year, you obviously don't have a apprenticeship and not enough qualifications for University.

National 5, which is roughly the equivalent of an "O" grade to doddery old farts like us.😂

For younger viewers, think Standard grade general/credit or Intermediate 2. The level before Highers.

After Highers, it's Advanced Higher, which used to be called certificate of sixth year studies.

Edited August 18, 2019 by FTOF

[whydowebother]

Have you even seen a thread go way off topic like this ?

For Gods sake !!! [emoji2]