text:
- Sigal Tifferet
- Kfar Vitkin
- Israel
Senior Lecturer, Ruppin Academic Center
This conversation is closed.
Can people who deny science be educated? How?
Some of my undergraduate students deny scientific research with the following claims: (1) my experience shows otherwise, (2) scientific results are always changing, (3) each person has his own truth.
Is there a way to change their way of thinking, or should it be treated as a belief, similar to religion which is unfalsifiable?
If it is subject to change, how would you go about achieving that change?
Please do not answer the question "Should people who deny science be educated?", that is a different issue.
Feb 20 2011: There's much egocentrism displayed here. Many of the comments are about what science is and how to display the truth of science, as if a denier would automatically see the error of their beliefs when confronted with logical arguments and demonstrations.
The false assumption that makes many of the comments here beside the point, is that deniers are cut from the same cloth as most of 'us' here. They are not. Logical arguments or demonstrations work for people who think, who are willing and excited to reappraise their beliefs, opinions, knowledge, etc, in the face of new facts.
Not everybody wants to think. Not everybody has the interest to think as we (me? TEDdies?) do. Many don't even have the 'luxury' to think, especially if their primary concern is scratching enough calories out of the ground. Yet, as humans, they still seek (are cursed?) an answer to satisfy their need for a meaning to their world. IT DOESEN'T MATTER whether the answer makes sense or not. What they want is to satisfy an itch so they can get on with their lives, or feel part of a group, or be feel assured their vision of the world is right. Without which they feel insecure.
To teach science deniers, you have to at least offer something to satisfy their need for the meaning of their world before threatening them with something that would invalidate the beliefs they hold. This is especially hard for those deniers who have committed many years to such beliefs, or have a vested interest in them. It would be like saying to them, "Your life was wrong." If they were of a mind to appreciate logic and rationality, they wouldn't be deniers in the first place. You have to find another method of persuasion than displays and arguments of logic and rationality.
Efforts to assuage their fears of seeming or being irrelevant or mistaken may prove beneficial. Basically, ask them what they are afraid of and show them there is no harm in being wrong.
Feb 20 2011: I've been watching this debate closely, and so far this is the most astute comment. Thank you.
Feb 20 2011: What I would have added if I hadn't run out of characters was: You need to give people something to 'run to', that THEY understand, not just tell them what to 'run away' from. (I've been never been accused of being astute before. Thankx, I think.)Feb 20 2011: I agree. The key is, as you say, "ask them what they are afraid of" and understand where they are coming from rather than simply jumping ahead to show them another way.
Feb 22 2011: I think what most people are afraid of is death. Science and reasoning doesn't give them the warm fuzzy feeling that the religious indoctrination does.
Ask them to ask themselves what it was like before they were born and they will have the answer to what it will be like when they die.Feb 21 2011: I don't think a petitio principii (begging the question) is astute,
but indeed... thorough reason and logic are not necessary when it comes to making a living.
Knowing something useful or learning a rule of thumb that is sufficient is that. Sufficient.
If someones denies science, I gather the person has already passed the level of gathering food and shelter.
If he/she wants to go beyond sufficient, we call that further education.
I don't think the question was "do we need to educate everybody?" or "has any new born human the capacity to become more rational?"
I would even argue that saying that "some people don't need education" is worse than saying "we should offer everybody education" or "we should educate everybody"
Feb 21 2011: I don't know that I was particularly astute either, but as your response seems directed at my response, here is my response to your response (is there a better way to say that?).
I think we agree, maybe. I fear I may not be as articulate as I should, your patience please.
I don't understand petitio principii (begging the question). The question was: How do I teach science deniers? My answer was: It depends on why they deny science.
Toward your other comments:
There are many who go to school seeking education, formally called training, sufficient to make a living. This is NOT to be confused with going to a 'University' to learn about the universe, which I agree is beyond sufficient. That it enables one to make a living too (usually) is almost besides the point. Some do it for the knowledge, some only for the sheepskin.
Yes, most are beyond hunting and gathering, but they can still be exhausted by work even if they do not have a heavy physical job. Off the shelf explanations that deny science may satisfy their need; for meaning & purpose, or community, or validation. They are adequate. No more work (thought) is required.
Do we need to, or who should, or who can, or whether anyone needs to, be educated, etc. were not questions I meant to ask or imply. I'm sorry if my response was perceived that way.
Feb 21 2011: I also think our opinions don't differ very much (and I might have misinterpreted your response, not a native English either ;-) )
"Begging the question" is, in rhetoric, a way of false reasoning by changing or altering the basic premises that were put forward.
In this case "Can people who deny science be educated? How?"
So there are 2 terms that are open to interpretation (or to discussion): what is science?, and what is education?
I think that we can, for sake of argument, use the "science" definition I coined?
For education... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education
=> in that contest, I must agree and say: science is not necessary, as non-university knowledge is also education (i.e. education in kung fu is possible...)
Although I could try and argue that in principle everything in education needs to at least a lesser degree an acceptance of science... but that would lead this whole debate too theoretical and academical imo.
So let's keep it practical and think if we can give Sigal more suggestions about the "how" part?Feb 22 2011: I have nothing against religion I don't follow Christian morals myself but I actually think society can benefit very much from Christian morals.
What irks me about the deniers is not that they are religious but that they are blatantly ignorant people. I'm fine if as a person you hold true to Christian values but at the same time when you flat out deny fact I think that is a very dangerous way to think. I am not trying to make people denounce their religion, but these deniers can still man up and acknowledge responsibility in their lives.
Acknowledge that the world is factual and God is absent, no amount of wishful thinking will bring Him to earth and get Him to solve all your problems. I think coming to terms with such an idea is not just a process of learning it is also a process of maturation and you don't have to deny your religion to accomplish it. You just have to let go of the fear and anxiety that comes with acknowledging that you might be alone in the universe and the big guy upstairs is not gonna tell you what to do and give you a pat on the back for a job well done, acknowledge that you might be responsible for the things you do,
Sondra Sneed
Feb 22 2011: Hi Budimir,
- +1
As a former atheist, I'll tell you, it was in what I experienced of what I called God, that makes me cringe over religion. Honestly, it is impossible to convince someone about the existence of something as profound as one's creator. Because when you are inside the ocean, you cannot perceive that you are all wet. God is what God creates as God becomes. God, to my experience, is the ever-evolving being, since time began with a bang; and we can talk back to it and it to us because it made us that way. Just as we create our artificial intelligence to respond to us, so too did our creator because it wants to know what it is. We cannot see it because it created us to see ourselves so we can tell God what God is. All of nature was designed to show God what God is.
The great I AM, is more than fact, it is you.
Feb 22 2011: I couldn't disagree more.
I can perceive that I am indeed all wet when I am in the ocean. In the same way I can perceive that I am running out of breath when there is no air.
"he created us to see ourselves so we can tell god what god is". Sounds like complete nonsense to me.
Man created god in his image, to serve mans own purpose.Feb 22 2011: Vincine-
I agree wholeheartedly with John. You have boiled this down to its core.
Mark Meyer
Feb 16 2011: It's interesting that you tagged the topic with skepticism. The denial of science at its root is skepticism, which is something science should embrace. Denying scientific research is in many ways the foundation of science itself. If we never denied science, we would still be searching for phlogiston instead of dark matter.
- +7
Granted, denying scientific research is not the same as denying the methods of science. But even a little bit of mistrust of the methods of science is healthy because it moderates scientism and prevents the blind trust in science from being used to make arguments beyond the scientific domain. It also encourages a needed humility in practitioners of science who should always be mindful of our limits and the vastness of our ignorance. Let's not forget that while science has brought us many wonderful things it also brought us eugenics.
Science does not have a monopoly on truth. The philosophy of science has never really answered Hume's basic complaint about inductive reasoning. Unless you are willing to tackle the arguments put forth by the likes of Karl Popper, Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos, it might be better not to ask 'can deniers be educated?' but rather can they be engaged in the search for meaning and truth?Feb 16 2011: No, they can not.
Not if you understand what science actually is and implies.
"Science is the set of methods that can uncover truth" (As a very very short definition)
If you use this definition, you cannot uncover truth, hence not be propper educated.
To go into the claims:
(1) sure, experience shows otherwise... and experience can be delusional... show them examples of illusions (visual, auditive, taste, cognitive,...) And explain that even knowing those illusions doesn't free you from perceiving them.
(2) Indeed. As our knowledge about the world is always incomplete and default.
There are however results and laws that don't change, and can be asserted as true with a probability approaching 1.
If they don't want to believe the laws of Newton, ask them to do the '10 high' test (jumping from a 10 storey building) and see whether gravity is real or not...
(3) This is false: each person has his own image of the world and his own assumptions of what is true or not. There is only one truth. Each person has his or her own understanding of it.
You can compare each others understanding, see where there are differences, and put them to the test (in which case you are doing scientific research!)
Hope this helps
Feb 16 2011: I beg to differ that they cannot be educated. I totally understand your premise for making such statement but what about thinking outside the science box? They are probably non believers of science & have beliefs in religion etc. God vs. Darwinism... A different view! Are you saying that people who believe in religion or anything other than science are uneducated?
Feb 16 2011: "Are you saying that people who believe in religion or anything other than science are uneducated?"
Not to speak for Christophe, But, as for me, I think the simple answer to that question is "Yes".
The longer answer is that I would say, if they deny legitimate Science and its findings, they are under-educated regarding the true nature of scientific inquiry and/or operating under a cognitive disconnect about it...To me, I don't see how anyone can examine the evidence for Evolution, for example, with sufficient understanding of what the evidence presents as fact, and come away saying that it is not a valid explaination for describing the progress and diversity of life.
Feb 22 2011: I'm with Michael here too. To believe in anything without reproducible evidence is an act of ignorance.
A good example:-
A few years ago I put down my religion as "Jedi" on the UK census. I don't pretend to have super powers nor do I actually have them. I did it to prove a point. My mother was outraged, perhaps even more so than when I told her I was an athiest. My response was perhaps not the most diplomatic but I think summarises the point most other athiests will agree with.
Being a Jedi is based on a belief in a recent film. ( at least films have special effects)
Being a Christian/Muslim/etc requires belief in an ancient book.
I know the film was man made, and fictitious. I also know that the book(s) are man made and fictitious. Yet she is prepared to believe the contents of a book that is largely contradictory and written by multiple parties a significant time after the events they attempt to describe. Why? A simple lack of education or simply brainwashing. Those books are no more a source of historical truth or "real truth" than any film.Feb 24 2011: Not everything in this world is quantifiable and measurable, reproducible, and able to have its mystery sucked out of it so it can be properly categorized and made small. Not all science does that either. The social sciences, that so many in the scientific world don't like or do not understand, try to apply much of what you just said to things that are harder to understand.
When you are attracted to a person of the opposite sex, neurons fire, hormones are released, and who knows how many other processes happen during the course of "mating". But when we make love, the feelings we have, the possible connection we feel, which may or may not be reproducible(and may never happen again) or any other way scientifically studied(except abstractly through statistics maybe?), should not be chalked up to ignorance. It is why science is not, in my opinion, absolute and undeniable.. it doesn't take into account all the many special things that can't be explained, or maybe SHOULDN'T be explained..
I know you are arguing religion specifically, but I am arguing extremism.. any belief taken too far, too absolutely, is EQUALLY fallible, and likely just as bad. I thank god, or whatever the hell it is that allows us to exist, be it strings, or one of those ancient religions, that there is so much diversity in life and in people for us to all be able to type on keyboards, and send information flying every direction simultaneously so we can all see it. Yes, science made it possible, and so did whatever it is that made science possible, be it potential, big bangs, or anything else.
I have a few characters left, so here are last thoughts. Everything is amazing, and nobodies happy http://youtu.be/8r1CZTLk-Gk
I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
So much to consider that I could never, ever, ever, make my world so small as you sound like you have.
Bruno Neves
Feb 16 2011: One slight comment, which makes my argument relevant, is that he asks whether they should, not whether they could. But that is not my point...
- +1
A person who denies science, usually doesn't do so from ignorance, but rather a conflict of emotions that forces him to deny that which he can (or could) recognize as a truth.
We can all choose in what to believe. Similarly, we can choose whether to challenge the very forces that drive us, or simply believe in them blindly. Therefore, I believe that in that sense, a person could not become an educated scientist...
Nevertheless, they can still be educated on the interpersonal relations that we have, be charitable, or perhaps even good business men. We musn't generalize too much, for there are a thousand forms of intelligence. Just because a person refuses to believe in science doesn't mean a person cannot read and learn about other areas. Similarly to how a person who doesn't believe in religions, God, etc., can still be educated on the subject.
Short answer: Yes.
But not in areas that require scientific knowledge.Feb 17 2011: Chandra:
"Are you saying that people who believe in religion or anything other than science are uneducated?"
I do not say that (It would be folly to state such at thing)
I would claim that they either believe something contrary to truth, or something redundant (i.e. something that cannot be proven nor dis-proven).
Which I think indicates they are either irrational or ignorant.
As happens, education can reduce both....
So I'd agree with
"people who believe in religion or anything other than science are undereducated"
@ Roberts: agree
@ Bruno: Knowledge about interpersonal relationships or about charity or anything can be either backed or refuted by science.
One does not need to follow the scientific method to learn something (It would be cumbersome).
I would like to add a nice quote of John Stuart Mill in 'on Liberty'
"In the opinion, not of bad men, but of the best men, no belief which is contrary to truth can be really useful"
Feb 24 2011: You said:"I would claim that they either believe something contrary to truth, or something redundant (i.e. something that cannot be proven nor dis-proven)."
I have this instructor teaching sociology that made a point the other day that was pretty powerful.. regardless of how true or untrue what someone's belief is, if you take the example of a terrorist who destroys his body during a suicide bombing, he believes in what he believes more than anyone else can ever claim.
Science is fallible because it is in our heads, being used by words, that are so very flexible and fragile. We all accept that what goes up(like when we jump) will come down, even if some don't accept the explanation of gravity that makes it possible. Not all science is so concrete I think, so many things science has explained, then re-explained or theorized when it didn't have it quite right the last time, or the time before.
The sun revolved around the earth at one point remember? That was until some other "scientist" proved that it didn't. Both used science as the basis of theories that were widely accepted by the scientific community of the time. What if there is an ever BETTER explanation, the last theory not quite being wrong, just not being complete..
Does that make science imperfect, or just so flexible in our minds that we forgive it for it's transgressions, blaming those individuals who were the REAL culprits.. right?
Until science can prove or disprove everything that is, we need alternate perspectives to be able to look at those things, because as far as I know.. there are many legitimate questions that science, as it is now, is inadequate to even frame as a question, much less find an answer for. For some that is the faith, for others the mystery, and others(myself would be one) the beauty of whatever this reality we are all coexisting on/in.Feb 19 2011: Thanks Christophe, this is the direct answer to my question. Very helpful.
Hans Bauer
Feb 23 2011: I want to stress what you say about "(3) each person has his own truth.", Christophe.
- +1
As you say, "There is only one truth" - if we can ever reveal that truth or not. So the expression "own truth" is semantically paradox though widely spread because it even appears in philosophical and psychological publications. What people want to express with this term should be named "personal opinion". Personal opinions may be as close to truth as human perspective allows, even congruent, but are never identical with truth itself as being a different category. An opinion may be true ur false but never is "the truth".
I want to point this out because the term "own truth" or "personal truth" is highly suggestive and even purposefully used for manipulation.
George Kong
Feb 23 2011: Christophe, it's always fun to take a strident hard line of them vs us. We're kinda hardwired to do it.
- +2
But we're also quite adept at knowledge partitioning. That is to say, we can readily and easily hold multiple incongruent pieces of information in our head and believe them all nonetheless, because it requires a degree of effort to cross reference their information and make them congruent with each other.
It's why even in the NIS, you have 15% of scientists there been religious, while their achievements in the field of science are generally without reproach.
Taking advantage of knowledge partitioning means that we need to find and seed ideas and information that doesn't 'raise red flags' in a denier's head. With enough of these ideas in there, you can eventually start to challenge them on the congruency of that information. They'll go through a good deal of cognitive dissonance attempting to reconcile opposing facts and ideas.
And maybe they'll come out better, or maybe they won't. They'll probably just end up confused, but that's ok. Because you can just continue the cycle.
The trick I suppose is in figuring out what exactly it is that you can 'seed' a person with without 'triggering' other negative mental associations that makes them reject an idea out of hand. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately depending on your perspective), each person is wired differently, the same idea will produce different set of associations that may or may not trigger another set of mental processes that ends up in the rejection of that idea.
As a societal level, you can only really immerse people in a 'culture of science'. Ideas, media, things that glorify rationality, science, technology... all that good stuff. Something like TED, but more of it, and probably for a younger age group.
At an individual level, it just means talk to your friends, challenge their assertions, talk about all the good stuff without going out of your way to press buttons.
Feb 24 2011: George,
I think I can agree with most of what you say...
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
(Through the Looking Glass)Feb 18 2011: so long as science is improving our understanding of the universe (and it is) all current "conclusions" are tentative and subject to change.
It's not your job to convince anyone - that's a salesman's job. it's your job to present the facts as they are objectively. the people who want to will resonate with it and agree with your conclusions.
Feb 19 2011: I would not want to be a salesman, if that means hiding crucial facts and presenting false claims.
I would want to give them tools of scientific thought that they could use to evaluate different claims. For instance: Is the claim falsifiable? Have the results leading to the claim been replicated? Is the research method convincing (i.e. case studies vs. double blind with placebo).
Feb 21 2011: thats very good, there will be plenty of people who love truth enough to learn from you. I say don't worry about the unwilling they'll change their minds someday and if they don't that's ok too. let the people believe what they want - I enjoy that privilege, and I think everyone else should too.Feb 22 2011: I understand and appreciate your wishes expressed here. What teacher would not have this desire? On the other hand I agree much to Vicine's view. And I think there is no general answer to the problem. Answers to your question are as individual as human beings are.
But I do ask, how people who deny science get to study scientific subjects? What are their motives?
Feb 23 2011: Reply to Hans (comment below?).
Perhaps the best form of "evangelizing" for rational thought is simply keeping up the debate. Truth (hope that's not too dogmatic a term) will eventually emerge.Feb 25 2011: Other than good grades and the hope for a better career I don't think they can honestly be motivated to learn.Feb 22 2011: This statement clarifies your question for me, Sigal, because I didn't know everything that science makes claim to to be falsifiable. It sounds as strange to me, however, as "If it cannot be measured, it does not exist." To which I ask, "Can you measure the mind?"
Feb 22 2011: "If it cannot be measured, it does not exist."
- That would be the rather large field of quantum mechanics
"Can you measure the mind?"
- People are always measuring the mind. A quick scan round TED will show up plenty of interesting things: http://www.ted.com/talks/sebastian_seung.html
Also New Scientist is a good bet: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18150-signature-of-consciousness-captured-in-brain-scans.htmlFeb 24 2011: @Sondra
I don't think your question, "Can you measure the mind?" serves your argument. Although Ben and Patricia could be argued with (if for no other reason than that the mind is a tricky thing to pin down) that doesn't support the notion that measurement is equivalent to falsification. It's a rare thing indeed that the scientific community agrees is "good science" that isn't falsifiable.Feb 22 2011: Sigal - I think that "evangelizing" for rational thought is a very worthwhile endeavor.
Although I think, that given enough time, humankind will move in the direction of reason, it still concerns me that dogmatic thought may result in a major catastrophe before we get there. Any push in the right direction should reduce the probability of apocalyptic thinkers getting their way.
Hans Bauer
Feb 23 2011: Are you aware, Tim, that science deniers do not only consider but feel science as dogmatic as e. g. you consider and feel e. g. religious statemants dogmatic? You used the expression "evangelizing". Well, that is what priests of religious confessions use to do, but isn't it just a soft form of indoctrinating, i. e. spreading opinions without the need of scientific proof?
- +1
It can be very efficient, as we can see, and its efficiency depends on the "evangelizer`s" skill or charisma. Wouldn't this be somehow like robbing Peter to pay Paul?Feb 24 2011: @ Hans-
Is that an academic question? I mean, do you think allowing someone with no training in cosmology to believe that the world rests on the back of a turtle as morally equivalent to allowing them to believe in a heliocentric solar system?
If you do then yes it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you don't, it isn't.Feb 25 2011: @ B. Reynolds
From the moral point of view you are right. "Cuz we are the good, the moral, the educated ones!" ;)
But I wanted to point out the impression of the "stupid", the untrained, the uneducated ones, because the answer depends much on their mental and their emotional condition. The question was not if they should be educated but how, respectively if there is a way.
It can only be answered individually, I'd say. Some may be reasonable enough to accept arguments so that you need not put them into a space shuttle for them to see that there is no turtle underneath the world. But who has not the slightest notion of logical thinking, will regard scientific "evangelizing" the same as religious or other evangelizing. He will either turn down all of it as indoctrination or choose what he simply likes better. Thats's his sensation of moral.Feb 21 2011: well said. indoctrination is bad, even if the plan is to indoctrinate something good. children want us to present our knowledge the best we can, so it becomes available for them to take.
Sara Mayhew
Feb 18 2011: This is great topic and so important to ensuring the safety and prosperity to our scientific and technologically dependent society.
- +4
What's missing in our education is learning about skepticism; the many ways in which we fall prey to self-delusion through cognitive errors. If you can show people how unreliable personal experience is and the many ways in which our minds can deceive us, then they can be less prone to "denialism".
You can't reason someone out of a position which they didn't reason themselves into. It's much easier to fix ignorance than misinformation. Perhaps a start is to teach students about cognitive bias and logical fallacies using examples which they are either ignorant about or already accept as true. If they can begin to see how others are fooled by self-delusion and irrationality then it may lead to them questioning themselves as well.
Does that make sense? It may be too difficult to tackle issues they are emotionally invested in, but if they can be shown how confidently self-deluded others can be they might think "If it happens to them, it can happen to me" and begin to question their own views.
You might not be able to change what people think, but if you can change HOW they think, there might be hope.
Feb 19 2011: Yes. it makes sense. This what I try to do. In my Psychology classes I teach about optical illusions, cognitive illusions (Tversky and Kahneman), using Graphology in work selection, the Minnesota twins study which is enlightening in the question of Nature and Nurture and more. If the topic is more controversial I Insist on bring them raw data so that we can study it together, and not just the study conclusions.Feb 26 2011: There's a wonderful line at the beginning of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:
"Archaeology is the search for fact...not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Philosophy class is right down the hall"
I think this distinction is powerful. When your students think that science is attempting to take away from them their understanding of the *meaning* of the world, then they will resist it. But if they understand that the goal of science is narrowly limited to exploring the reliability of facts then they may be able to properly partition those concepts in their head.
This is how professional religious academics maintain their personal faith. They understand that their work is an exploration of historical fact but their religious practice is an exploration of meaning. This skill helps them freely uncover facts that would otherwise ruin their personal spirituality.
David Spence
Feb 16 2011: I think the answer to how is based in the Socratic method.
- +3
Student "Scientific results are always changing"
Teacher "Oh? and do those changes invalidate the scientific method or do they use the scientific method to further validate a set of data?"
Student "You know, it is like they keep saying a thing causes cancer then it does not etc. "
Teacher "So is this vague example an example of science or one of how the media reports on science?"
Student "I had not thought of that maybe it is the reporting"
Teacher "Yes I suspect so as most good science tents to support previous studies and often adds additional data to an existing scientific question."
.. and so on. They often need to reason threw notions of empirical vs scientific evidence. They often don't understand the nature of a specific scientific truth. For instance I have associates that scoff at global warming due to recent trends of cold in North America. But that only stems from the false perception that global warming means every place experiences warmer temperatures. Education is a process that takes time and patience.
Now as an aside on this topic. Those who choose "willful ignorance" are another question as they value some idea of the world above all other to the point that any other truth is false purely because it challenges their particular world view.Feb 16 2011: 1. They need to understand that personal experience is not reliable.
2. Scientific results are very rarely overturned (if ever). They are refined.
3. Each person has their own view of reality. Truth, however is objective. It is the aim of science to try and cut a path through the most objective understanding possible.
See this link to a letter, by Isaac Asimov, for a great explanation of how science works: http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
Feb 19 2011: Thank you for the response and the link. I did not know about it before.
Vilgot Huhn
Feb 17 2011: I think most people naturally understand the concept of true/false real/not real. If they talk about "individual truth" or "there's no such thing as objective truth" they're either really interested in philosophy (and hopefully open minded to interesting ideas) or more likely, trying to hide behind this paradox of reality in order to protect some belief that they cherish.
- +2
Truth is real. In order to understand what's real on a deeper level you must look at the real world around you. I believe everyone gets this. It's obvious that a belief system that changes and adapts whenever new data is discovered is going to be superior to a system that says "this book is the only truth". Well there's an awful lot of things not mentioned in that book that are also true.
I say you should do some kind of extremely pedagogical exercise. Maybe tell a story of two people that believe differently about the weight of a bag of sand and then finally they get to weigh the bag of sand and it turns out one of the guys where right. Then move on to a more complex example of "turns out this guy was right and this guy was wrong". And then an even more complex example and so forth. Don't start with the controversial stuff, then people will just get defensive. Start with the trivial obvious stuff, make them see that anyone can be wrong about their assumptions, and that the way towards being right about things is to base your assumptions on something logical and observed.
My idea is pretty vague but it shouldn't be impossible. I'd think.
And also, remember, almost no one admits losing an argument to your face. Even tough most people don't have the humility to admit that they were wrong they sometimes change their mind. I know I have. Not on the spot but afterwards, when it had really sunken in.Feb 16 2011: Yes of course you can change their way of thinking, it is called brainwashing (maybe they have already suffered this). To change, you need only teach those individuals that already have a strong belief in what they are studying and not to those who study a subject merely to re-affirm their own beliefs.Feb 16 2011: Sadly I am truly afraid not. As the saying goes - "don't try to teach a pig to sing - it is a waste of your time and it annoys the pig" I do not know the cause of this situation. I suspect there could be genetic factors similar to the difference between people who are left or right brain dominant. In the "nature vs. nurture" bull pen the war rages but I suspect the environment has the upper hand.
Recently (a couple years back?) there was a great conference at the National Press Club where 400 prominent scientists, military leaders and highly respected intellectually aware people gathered to express their knowledge based on direct observation or of "suppressed classified information" of UFO / ET existence.
One of such people told the crowd that all were aware of their minority status and said, "take heart my brothers and sisters - it will only take one of our stories to be proven true to the world to silence all the nay sayers once and for all time.
All are waiting for that day. Some pass the time differently than others.
Edward B.
Feb 16 2011: First off, we have to define what you mean by "denying science".
- +2
Everyone has their own lens, their own coloured spectacles through which they view and interpret the world around them. It is impossible to be completely objective. This is a basic philosophical concept.
It is impossible to prove anything using empirical data: your mind can be easily tricked into seeing experiencing something that isn't there (the Veil of Perception). Science is based on empirical data, thus it is impossible to fully prove anything. Yes, you can get closer to "the truth", but there will always be some doubt there. Imagine it like the tangent curve: getting closer and closer to 90 degrees, but it only reaches it after the y-value reaches infinity. You cannot prove anything fully without doing an infinite amount of tests.
So, as Timmoty Wigboldus pointed out earlier in this conversation, wrong is relative, to a certain extent. You cannot be completely sure of anything if you look at all the facts and be objective, as there is always some doubt there. So if you are completely sure of something, you are losing objectivity and becoming more and more subjective until you deny any other view.
Unfortunately, this is common in modern science. People like to be "right". So, with regards to Christophe Cop's comment "Science is the set of methods that can uncover truth", this is not really true. It should read "Science is the set of methods that bring us closer to the truth." And besides, you should let your students "deny truth" if they wish: as long as they have a reason for not believing the given norm, this is fine. As Christophe Cop said earlier, comparing views and understanding, observing the differences, and coming to a conclusion (maybe several different conclusions) is what science is all about.
Edward B.
Feb 16 2011: I view everything as objective, with private, protected and public "address spaces", to borrow a computer science term.Feb 16 2011: " ... And besides, you should let your students "deny truth" if they wish: as long as they have a reason for not believing the given norm, this is fine ... "
They only valid reasons they can give for not "believing"[sic] in science is by showing them not to be true using better empirical data (e.g., more data, different data ...) that shows that the previous results are wrong.
Science gets pretty close to finding the truth of how the world works. How do we know that? Because the results of scientific endeavour give us things. Things that work. Not coloured by any lens. They work! Science does a very good job of getting past that "veil of perception".
Feb 17 2011: "Science does a very good job of getting past that 'veil of perception'."
Really? If we view everything through our own lens, how can we ever see anything without viewing it through that lens?
It's the old Brain in a Vat/Plato's cave problem. In Plato's cave, there are prisoners tied up so they can only see the back wall of the cave. A fire is a few yards behind them, and between the prisoners and the fire is a walkway. People walk on this walkway carrying objects that cast shadows on the wall. All the men can see, and have ever seen, is these shadows. They presume them to be true, and make inferences based on their observations. But when they are released, they see that the images they saw on the wall were false: mere shadows cast by the real objects behind them.
"The results of scientific endeavour give us things. Things that work. Not coloured by any lens. They work! Science does a very good job of getting past that 'veil of perception'."
Surely you can see this is wrong. Science is based on inferences, which are in turn based on observations. Those observations are subjective: you could be hallucinating. If you make inferences based on those (false) observations, then those inferences are false. That is why scientists perform many experiments to verify their claims, and get other scientists to verify their claims as well. Yet despite that, these results may not necessarily be true, due to the fact that your senses can lie.
So science can never *fully* get past the veil of perception. There will always be some doubt there. For example, Newtonian physics works on an atomic level and higher, but not at the quantum level. So is Newtonian physics correct? Yes, in certain circumstances. But not at the quantum level, where particles can be in two contradictory states at the same time.
Science can never provide us with hard truth: only something close.
Feb 17 2011: Myth about Cave - there is only one person who is free to move and find out reality. This person is philosopher :-)
Scientific reaserch gives us things which works but they work only with proper scientific training to use them. Every button to press is part of scientific world.
B. Reynolds
Feb 18 2011: Sigal-
- +3
This is an great opportunity. Edward B. well articulates the kind of argument you asked about. Now this is a poor forum for debate but look at his arguement:
Its structure is to take things back to the basic Descartean question of "What can I believe in? What do I really, really know?" Descartes (as we all know) concluded "I think, therefore I am" and built on things from there. Edward B. is basically arguing "I think, therefore I am, but I can't really know anything else."
This meme is easily dealt with because it's not an argument about science. It's an argument about argument. It calls into question the basic rules about what's acceptable in the conversation. So in class:
Edward B., you're points are great but let's make sure we're on the same page. You do, of course accept that there is in fact an Objective world, right? I mean, we could all just be brains in vats being stimulated electrically but that's not what you accept as Reality. If you don't accept that there is a world around you and that there are facts to be learned about it there's really no point in attending this or any other class. Go to a local supermarket, sit down in the ice cream isle and start eating rocky road until you grow old and die. In this classroom we're operating as though we are all here and can in fact learn things. If you look at Plato's argument you never find the men turning around after seeing a hook-shaped shadow and find that it was cast by a round ball. They see a hook-shaped shadow and turn to see something hook-shaped making it. Science isn't in the observation (about which we can and sometimes should disagree). No the only science in your example is when the man TURNS from the shadow to the fire. The science is when he adopts a new method of observation that reflects a more accurate view of the objective world. The science of the quantum doesn't replace Newton. It refines Newton. But we first have to agree that there are things called facts.
Sara Mayhew
Feb 18 2011: The act of using science is removing the lens of our own bias and errors in cognition. We cannot distinguish between what is true and what we want to be true without using the scientific method.
- +10
Appealing to the argument that everything is subjective is simply a way to rationalize denying facts that don't agree with our preconceptions. Science never claims absolute certainty about truth, so to claim otherwise is a straw man. What science does is tell us what is unambiguously untrue.
So no, we don't really have to define what denying science is. It's a derailment of the topic and only serves to justify our desire to believe in what is objectively untrue.
Mark Meyer
Feb 18 2011: Sarah, I think you do need to define what denying science is because the question is not unambiguous. The question is titled, "people who deny science," but the body uses the phrase, "students deny scientific research." Denying science and denying research are two different things. People often accuse those who deny specific research with denying science in general. This gives those who use scientific approaches to problems too much authority in fields where the research is a little less secure.
- +2
While the goal of science may be to remove bias and errors in cognition, the practice of science, historically, is full of bias and errors in cognition, especially confirmation bias. You could test your hypothesis that to use science is to remove bias, but you might find it to be unambiguously untrue. (You also might find yourself in a Zeno-like paradox where you try to test the test, etc.)
Also, you can often distinguish between what is true and false without scientific method because there are kinds of truth that don't require inductive reasoning. The syllogism is a easy example. You don't need to experimentally test that Socrates is mortal if you already know that he is a man and all men are mortal.
I've found many people who get labeled as anti-science are not actually denying scientific method. They are usually convinced by the outcome of an experiment that disproves a hypothesis. What they often deny are predictive assertions made by scientists where the assertions are not based on an observe-hypothesis-experiment paradigm, but rather on the model-predict paradigm. Often the only way to test the validity of a model is to wait and see because the scientists are modeling large, complex, feedback-laden systems. Yet the pundits ask us to accept these predictions with the same force as a physics experiment. We see this frequently in areas like economics, sociology, and climate science. It's a problem because we need to make policy decisions based on these models now.
Sara Mayhew
Feb 19 2011: Mark,
- +7
If you're investigating a claim in a manner where you're attempting to reduce bias, then you are doing science. Science is a verb. Science is critical thinking. It's really quite that simple. Wishy washy post-modernism need not apply.
I thought it was pretty clear in the original question what denying science meant; relying on personal experience and preconceptions to decide what is true and lacking the ability to accept disconfirming evidence.
Debating what science is and how useful it may be isn't the topic at hand. Assume science is the only method we have to obtain accurate information about the world--can you/how do you educate people who deny this approach?
Mark Meyer
Feb 19 2011: Thanks for the reply Sara. I hate to stoop to semantics, but science isn't a verb. I could be convinced otherwise if you could use it as a verb in a sentence or tell me its past tense or infinitive form.
- +4
I think you missed my point. There was no intention of being wishy-washy or postmodern. My point is that there is a big difference between one who denies science and empiricism in general along with the power of experiment and reason, and one who denies specific findings by scientists. In my experience the former is actually very rare. Most people who are accused of denying science as a whole usually only deny a specific theory or finding such as evolution or climate change. They are quite happy with the speed of light and the reasons airplanes can fly. And so it's not really the case that they deny science, but rather don't really understand how science is supposed to work. These are the people who offer nothing other than the "it's only a theory" argument against evolution. On the other hand, sometimes people do understand how science works and still disagree with specific scientific findings. Historically, this group has been called scientists and many of them have also been called deniers of science usually as a way to discredit their ideas.
The canonical example here is Ignaz Semmelweis who came up with the idea that you could reduce childbed fever if doctors washed their hands. This contradicted the consensus in the medical community which still focused on bodily humors. Semmelweis was ridiculed as being unscientific and people thought he was going crazy. He was committed to an asylum where he died. This should be a cautionary tale to those eager to educate people who disagree with their theories because sometimes your theories, despite wide acceptance and consensus, are still wrong.Feb 19 2011: @ Sara
Post modernism actually works to the benefit of science, but not truth. The instrumentalist approach which is highlighted in Stephen Hawking's latest book is a very post-structuralist idea. It maintains that theories are valid and consistent within their own limits. And sometimes in science it is impossible to understand a phenomenon by applying complete reductionsm. Sometimes it's necessary to apply the right level of reductionism. For instance as a chemist it would be hell for me to apply the principles of quantum mechanics in organic chemistry every time I tried to illustrate a reaction mechanism. As oppossed to doing rigorous math I would simply use the Bohr model of the atom, which is a false oversimplification but it predicts the reaction perfectly. If I tried to explain the shape and properties of the DNA molecule through quantum chemistry I would fail miserably. By the instrumentalist approach however, I can still claim that the theory is valid as long as it predicts consistent results.Feb 19 2011: For Sara, Mark, Budmir-
I think it's worth noting that this kind of tangent is precisely how the argument is lost by intelligent, well-meaning people who have the facts on their side. Mark, your disagreement with Sara is out of the context of the question. We don't need to define what science denying is because that isn't the point. This is about what an educator should expect is possible with a college level student who makes an incredulous statement. This isn't a semantic question it's a practical one. The real irony here is that the scientific method hasn't been applied to the efforts of educators in overcoming this kind of human roadblock. If it was I think you'd find evidence that like any other type of denial, it often has little to do with the facts and that facts alone won't easily correct the situation. As psychology and neuroscience already know, persuasion is about more than what is. Persuasion is mostly about creating the conditions for an emotional reaction that will encourage acceptance of an idea now so that it can be backed up by logic AFTER it has already been accepted.
Dan F
Feb 23 2011: Mark, obviously folks can witness something and report things differently. In fact, some could have motive to lie about what they experienced.
- 0
The relevant question is whether one account is more accurate or truthful in reality than the others? The answer is yes - the actual or more truthful account. The excellent film "Rashomon" dissects this matter beautifully.
The facts of the basic physical sciences are essentially black or white for the undergraduate. You either get the answer right or you get it wrong. You're not entitled to select or make up your own fact(s) to justify a wrong answer. You may get points for creativity, but not for comprehension of the real world.
To deny science and have a college degree is worse than being uneducated, it fosters ignorance because these individuals now have credentials.Mar 1 2011: While science may give you the absolute truth, it comes closer than anything we have seen thus far. There are no superior ways to proceed.Feb 17 2011: Also, why did you put "believing"[sic] in your post? I spelled it right. From the Collins dictionary: "Believe: to accept something as true or real."
Sorry to double-post, but I forgot to ask beforeFeb 18 2011: @ Michal Spacek
I can't reply to you, or myself, so I have to put this comment here...
I never said that "There is only one person who is free to move and find out reality. This person is philosopher." The point I was trying to make was that we can only get close to "truth". True, we have things like Newtonian physics that "work", but only inside our perception. We draw observations from our perception, draw inferences from those observations, and then apple these inferences to our perception. They may "work". That doesn't mean that they are actually real. They are only real in our perception, which may or may not be the *actual* world. Again, that is what the cave allegory is: the Brain in a Vat analogy is similar too (think The Matrix).
Feb 20 2011: Why does it really matter whether our world is real or just illusionary Matrix or shadows on a wall? Perhaps the Universe has no meaning of what is 'real' anyway. For our purpose what we observe is what matters at this point.
Science is ever growing knowledge of how things work and it is continuously improving its understanding.
When prisoners in a cave saw shadows they could observe and create theories about it. After seeing the fire the slaves can improve their theories but their new knowledge will not not change the facts they observed while facing the wall. The speed and shape of those shadows stay the same regardless. What changes is their understanding of what is actual source of these shadows, which is just a new information.
Comment deleted
Feb 25 2011: Some will simply point to the Bible (or whatever) as the 'Word of God' as proof. No research required, which is want they want, absolute answers, not more questions, which is what science inevitably leads to.Feb 18 2011: Thanks for adding the nuance
I do sometimes take the probabilistic approach for granted, as such forgetting to ad it explicitly.
So i could rephrase:
"Science is the set of methods that can reduce uncertainty about truth"
Feb 19 2011: Very good working definition, thank you.
Sara Mayhew - Thank you too. Unfortunately my English doesn't allow me to be very clear in philosophical issues. I agree totally with your reply.
Jimmy Strobl
Feb 19 2011: "Science is the set of methods that can reduce uncertainty about truth" is a very good way of putting it, I wonder how many people can deny that...
- +1
Thank you, that phrase will come in handy!Feb 19 2011: Everything should be doubt, and nothing we know for sure? That kind of thought, be careful when you put in your head, once you put it in, it's hard to get out.
Feb 28 2011: I didn't say "everything should be doubt": just that there will always be some doubt there. Science is a series of interpretations: people interpret things differently. Yes, the scientific method provides a framework to give rational explanations, but the point I was trying to make was that you can never be *completely* sure about a scientific theory's truth. Thus meaning that you shouldn't reject someone's (different) conclusion: as long as they have observations they can back their conclusion up with, their conclusion is just as valid as yours. Of course, that's where scientific debate comes in :D
Petr Frish
Feb 16 2011: YES - most people can be tought science, not just about science.
- +2
However, there is not a universal prescription.
Being ignorant is caused by lack of opportunity, and negative view of science,
for example in case of creationism vs evolution.
Krisztián Pintér says:
science education is way too abstract and formal.
well, often it is, but it does not have to be. Most people can understand that science is source of technology.
People negative, and therefore ignorant of science, have more often emotional rather then rational reasons.
They believe that 'scientists co-invented hoax of global warming' to bring in NWO
'scientists are using vaccination to depopulate planet'
How do you deal with that? Each case is different - but we should not ignore such people.
They vote.


text:
You've come this far with your education and now you want to take it one step further by acquiring a Master's degree. Looking at all the possibilities for upward career direction and availability of jobs, a Master's in Public Administration looks like a suitable choice. But what is a Master's in Public Administration exactly, and how does one go about achieving it?
A Master's in Public Administration:
This is a degree which allows its bearer to serve in most public sectors of government as both office management and office support. In recent years, it is also a degree required of those searching out employment in private sectors of charitable organizations and in privately owned businesses which serve the public, such as lawyers' offices. The duties are too numerous to list but usually include managing others within the office as everyone goes about administration tasks of typing, record keeping, filing, etc. The MPA graduate is responsible for the effective and efficient running of whatever office they work for and needs to make sure all tasks assigned to their office are completed on time.
While accreditation is not vital to the degree program, many employers like to see that MPA degree holders take their profession seriously enough to belong to an organization that provides special accreditation credentials to its members. It also makes a difference when applying for a job with a law firm versus applying for a job with your local city council's office. One such accreditation program in the United States is NASPAA, or the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, and can be reached for further information here: http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/NS/index.asp
There are also international accreditation programs if you get a MPA abroad or intend to serve as a public administration official in another country. In Europe, where a MPA degree is very useful in most government offices, you would want to contact EAPAA, or the European Association for Public Administration Accreditation. Having this credential in your resume is particularly impressive to employers as it shows a more global understanding of your chosen profession. You can contact the EAPAA through: http://eapaa.org.
The Amount of Schooling Required to Graduate with an MPA
All Master's degree programs run two years, full-time, for the coursework. Additional time may be needed to write your thesis before you are granted your degree and graduate. Some programs, depending on where you go, might require you to complete at least one accreditation process, but this is not universal and you will have to check with your schools of choice to see if this is a requirement for graduation.
The Fiscal Expense of a MPA Degree
No doubt if you have looked into any sort of Master's program you know that the cost, at the very least, is typically $3,000 per credit unit, and since most courses are three credits apiece, a single class is about $9,000. While this is the average, attending an online school versus a traditional school makes quite a difference as well. Your Master's this way can cost as little as $9,000 all the way up to $36,000. Obviously then, your choice in schools and how you pursue your degree and whether or not you specialize will dictate your expenses. (Note: these figures do not include room and board, books, etc.)
Campus Vs. Online Masters in Public Administration: What's the Difference?
A campus degree program is just that; you go to school during the day like you did for your Bachelor's. Your work schedule, if you are employed, has to flex around your class schedule to make this work. Most adults enrolled in a Master's program do have jobs, which is why a regular campus program doesn't always work. If you have to live on campus because you are far from home, that's an additional expense of several thousands of dollars a year.
Many schools that offer long distance learning are making it more possible for people to earn their degree on their time. Online learning offers classes to fit your schedule, not the other way around, and the tuition is significantly less. The downside to this is that you don't get the hands on experience you need once you graduate and start looking for employment.
Now that you have the facts, you can make an educated evaluation of your options. You can start looking for the school you want to enroll in and apply right away for financial aid, if that is an option for you. MPA's have a broad and bright outlook on their careers; you have chosen well. Good Luck!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Skip to Section Subnavigation Skip to Page Content
For first-year and transfer students.
Associate and bachelor's degree programs for men and women 4 full years out of high school.
Elementary, middle level and secondary certification for men and women with a bachelor's degree.
Skip to Page Content
Welcome to the Career Development Center (CDC) where all students and alumnae/i are offered career planning services and access to career development resources.
The CDC is committed to serving Wilson College's entire student population both during and after your education. Whether you are interested in figuring out what to major in, looking for an internship, a part-time position, or a full-time career we are here to assist you. We offer a number of programs and services to help you write professional resumes and cover letters, identify positions, experience great interviews, and research career information.
Additionally, the Career Development Center also sponsors a variety of workshops on topics of interest, job fairs, on-campus recruitment, and several online resources. The CDC also has a excellent Career Library with a vast collection of information.
Stop by to learn more about what we offer and to set up your 4-Year Career Development Plan today!
Services Offered to Students and Alumnae/i:
Website where you can look for jobs, and research companies, salaries, and interview questions.
*Adapted from Indiana University-Fort Wayne-2007
Career Services are still available to you as alums. Please stay in touch with Career Services through Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest.
All students completing internships this summer must submit their application PRIOR to the LAST ADD/DROP day for the semester in which they will be completing the internship. Please also be sure to turn in your mid and final evaluations to Career Development.
Linda A. BoeckmanDirector of Career DevelopmentPhone: 717-262-2006 ext.3314Wilson College1015 Philadelphia AvenueChambersburg, PA 17201(717) 264-1578 FaxLocation:Lenfest Commons #103
8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.


text:
Directed by Lee Chang-dong (이창동)
Screenplay by Lee Chang-dong (이창동)132min | Release date in South Korea : 2002/08/15
Jong-du, who has three previous convictions, pays a visit to the family of the victim in the hit-and run accident for which he served time and meets Gong-ju, the daughter, who has cerebral palsy. Jong-du is fascinated by her at first sight and visits her again when he knows she is alone. Trying to reassure and pacify the terrified young woman, he loses control and tries to rape her, stopping only when she faints. But he has left his workshop phone number in her room, and Gong-ju knows where to find him. To Jong-du's amazement, she calls him and invites him to visit her again. Over a series of clandestine meetings, the handicapped young woman and the feckless young man come to fall in love with each other. However their love is not one that is understood by anyone else.
You're reading the news with potential spoilers, make them spoiler free, dismiss
Blu-ray (First Press Limited Edition) (En Sub)
DVD HK (En Sub)
DVD 2-disc Special Edition (En Sub)
DVD (HK) (En Sub)
DVD (En Sub)
View all 25 pictures for "Oasis"
|Brandon Fincher / KFC...
http://www. ( Korean ) | Close
|Lee Marshall in Venice / Screen International ...
http://www.screendaily.com ( Korean ) | Close
|CJ Entertainment (CJ Entertainment)
|132 min •35mm •Panoramic (1.85)
- Trailer
- Interview
- On the set video
|Festival(s) & award(s)
|Sales or release dates & Box Office
|Fan club
|Quick message
To participate to HanCinema, you must sign up or log in. Sign up, Why ?
|Old message board
Subscribe to HanCinema Pure to remove ads from the website (not for episode and movie videos) for US$2.99 per month (you can cancel anytime).
The first step is to be a member, please click here : Sign up, then a subscribe button will show up.
Drama of the week
Today's birthdays


text:
Skip to content
Text Size
You can find out more about NPF's National Medical Director, Dr. Michael S. Okun, by also visiting the NPF Center of Excellence, University of Florida Center for Movement Disorders & Neurorestoration.
The recent surge in publications on Parkinson's disease related exercise has left many patients and doctors ill equipped to implement these types of programs for individual sufferers. Most of the exercise trials in Parkinson's disease have revealed meaningful benefits both in Parkinson's specific symptoms, and in quality of life. Though we have yet to sort out the best types of exercise regimes, the mot appropriate frequency of exercise, and the optimal intensity of therapy for any individual patient, there is unfortunately an even larger issue facing the field. Many people suffering from Parkinson's disease simply stated do not exercise. Understanding the barriers preventing implementation of a regular Parkinson's disease exercise program will be important for both prescribing clinicians and for patients.
In the January 3rd issue of the journal Physical Therapy, Ellis and colleagues explored the barriers to exercise in community dwelling people with Parkinson's disease. The authors studied 260 Parkinson's disease patients and compared exercisers to non-exercisers. The patients were asked to complete the barriers subscale of the Physical Fitness and Exercise Activity Levels of Older Adults Scale. The study revealed that in people who did not exercise, there was a low expectation for positive benefit. The non-exercise group also was concerned about the amount of time needed per day to initiate such a program, as well as the fall risk associated with exercise.
Making our clinicians and our patients aware of the barriers to implementing exercise programs for Parkinson's disease will aid us in overcoming the issues unearthed by Ellis et. al. There will, in the near future, likely be more Parkinson's specific research studies that will shed even more light on this issue. In the man time, education will play a pivotal role in facilitating the implementation of exercise plans, and health care practitioners as well as family members should be prepared to present Parkinson's disease patients with recent scientific data supporting the use of exercise. A higher level conversation about exercise, citing its proven benefits, has an enhanced potential to reverse some of the low expectations expressed by many Parkinson's sufferers. Additionally, it should be stressed to patients that consistent daily exercise may be performed in small aliquots of time (30-60 minutes a day), and in many cases within the home setting. Finally, there are many exercises that can be performed safely without increasing the fall risk. Involvement of a physical therapist and a care partner can be useful in setting up a safe, and consistent home-based or gym-based program.
As more studies clarify the types of exercise we should be prescribing for individual patients, more clinicians will need to develop strategies to defeat the barriers to implementing exercise programs in Parkinson's disease. Exercise is likely to improve the quality of life for most Parkinson's disease sufferers, but we must meet the meet the public health challenge to get it adopted, and get it embraced by the Parkinson's disease community.
Selected References
Ellis T, Boudreau JK, Deangelis TR, Brown LE, Cavanaugh JT, Earhart GM, Ford MP, Foreman KB, Dibble LE. Barriers to Exercise in People With Parkinson Disease. Phys Ther. 2013 Jan 3. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 23288910.
Ahlskog JE. Does vigorous exercise have a neuroprotective effect in Parkinson disease? Neurology. 2011 Jul 19;77(3):288-94. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318225ab66. Review. PubMed PMID: 21768599; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3136051.
Browse current and archived What's Hot in PD? articles, the National Parkinson Foundation's monthly blog for people with Parkinson's written by our National Medical Director, Dr. Michael S. Okun.
June 2015
Short and Long-Term Problems with Anticholinergic Drugs used for Sleep, Bladder, and Tremor Symptoms
May 2015
Leaps in Deep Brain Stimulation Technology
April 2015
What to tell Parkinson's patients about diet and taking statin drugs
March 2015
Everything a Parkinson's Disease Patient Needs to Know About the New Dopamine Pump
February 2015
Tips for Parkinson's Disease Patients Switching from Sinemet or Madopar to Rytary (IPX066)
January 2015
More Evidence Linking Gut Bacteria to Parkinson's Disease: A Guide for Patients
December 2014
Two New Therapies for Parkinson's Disease Patients to get Excited About: Vaccines and Monoclonal Antibodies
November 2014
The Importance of a Monitoring Strategy When Prescribing Dopamine Agonists: Lessons from the National Parkinson Foundation Data
October 2014
Is Midlife Migraine Related to Late Life Parkinson's Disease?
September 2014
Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease: NPF Congratulates Mahlon DeLong and Alim-Louis Benabid and Looks to a Bright Future in Human Neural-Network Modulation
August 2014
Everything You Need to Know About Medical Marijuana and Parkinson's Disease
July 2014
The End for Levodopa Phobia: New Study Shows Sinemet is a Safe Initial Therapy for Treatment of Parkinson's Disease
June 2014
Is light therapy a potential treatment modality in Parkinson's disease?
May 2014
How does the most common genetic cause of Parkinson's Disease (LRRK2) cause Parkinson's disease and could it be used to help develop a better therapy?
April 2014
An Update on DAT Scanning for Parkinson's Disease Diagnosis
March 2014
Could Northera (Droxidopa) Be an Alternative Treatment for Low Blood Pressure and Passing Out Symptoms?
February 2014
The Dream of a Pill Free Existence and the Continuous Dopaminergic Pump for the Treatment of Parkinson's Disease
January 2014
Should I take Inosine to Raise my Uric Acid Levels and Treat my Parkinson's Disease?
December 2013
Could Fungus and Mold be an Important Contributor to Parkinson's Disease?
November 2013
Pimavanserin and the Hope for a Better Drug for Hallucinations and Psychosis in Parkinson's Disease
October 2013
Halting of the Creatine Study
September 2013
The Importance of Identifying and Treating Caregiver Strain
August 2013
Putting Parkinson's Disease Information into the Palm of Your Hand: Parkinson's Enters the Smartphon
July 2013
What Parkinson's Disease Patients Need to Know about H. Pylori Gastrointestinal Infections
June 2013
A2A Receptor Antagonists and Parkinson's Disease Treatment
May 2013
Another Setback for Trophic Factor Treatment in Parkinson's Disease
April 2013
IPX066 and What Patients Really Want in New Carbidopa/Levodopa (Sinemet) Formulations
March 2013
The Weather Forecast for Parkinson's Disease Calls for Worldwide Economic Storm
February 2013
Defeating the Barriers to Implementing Exercise Regimens in Parkinson's Disease Patients
January 2013
When should you start medication therapy for Parkinson's disease?
December 2012
Neurologist Care Reduces Hospitalizations in Parkinson's Disease
November 2012
A Victory in Court for Parkinson's Disease Patients who Require Ongoing Rehabilitative Therapies
October 2012
Given the recent FDA announcement about Mirapex (pramipexole), should I be worried about dopamine agonists?
September 2012
What about the new Parkinson's Disease Vaccine? What should I know?
August 2012
Caffeine as a Potential Treatment for Parkinson's Disease
July 2012
Time to Consider GPi DBS for Parkinson's Disease: A Shift in the Practice of Patient Selection for DBS
June 2012
A New Treatment for Parkinson's Disease-Related Constipation
May 2012
Too Many Pills: Improving Delivery Systems for Parkinson's Disease Drugs
April 2012
Measuring Quality and Assessing Depression in Parkinson's Disease
March 2012
Watch out for Unexpected Obstacles if You Use a Cueing Strategy to Break Freezing of Gait in Parkinson's Disease
February 2012
Pill Color, Generic Medications and Insurance Issues: Important Medication-Related Tips for the Parkinson's Disease Patient
January 2012
Are Blood Tests for Parkinson's Disease on the Horizon?
December 2011
Placing Stem Cells in Animal Models of Parkinson's Disease: Another Important Step
November 2011
Important News for the Parkinson's Disease Community: More Evidence that Sinemet and Madopar are Not Toxic and do Not Accelerate Disease Progression
October 2011
The Case for All Parkinson's Disease Patients to be Co-managed by a Primary Care-Neurologist Team
September 2011
Scientists say Research on Brain Proteins Involved in Parkinson's Disease is "Shaping" Up
August 2011
Who Actually Takes Care of Most of the Parkinson's Patients Worldwide: The Need for Education and the Parkinson's Toolkit
July 2011
If you are Dizzy or Passing Out, it could be Your Parkinson's Disease or Parkinson's Disease Medications
June 2011
How Will Group Visits for Parkinson's Disease Fit into the Future of Parkinson's Disease Care?
May 2011
Why Patients Should be Wary of Chelation Therapy for Parkinson's Disease
April 2011
Opening the Door to Gene Therapy in Parkinson's Disease: The Need for Refinement of the Technology and Approach
March 2011
Does it Matter if I Can't Get Brand Sinemet?
February 2011
Should I get a DaTscan or PET scan to confirm my diagnosis of Parkinson's disease?
January 2011
A Critical Reappraisal of the Worst Drugs in Parkinson's Disease
December 2010
Environmental Risks for PD: Manganese, Welding, Mining, and Parkinsonism
November 2010
Calling for the FDA to Revise the Eight Sinemet a Day Rule
October 2010
Dry Cleaning Solvents and Potential Environmental Risks for Developing Parkinson's Disease
September 2010
Maintaining the Balance: Why Parkinson's Disease Patients Need to Understand Drug Recalls, Withdrawals, and Safety Alerts
August 2010
Shining a Light on Parkinson's Disease: Optogenetics Has a Bright Future in Research
July 2010
Poor Medication Management of Parkinson's Disease During Hospital Admissions: Patients and Families Can Improve Their Hospital-Based Management
June 2010
Why Are Patches and Continuous Release Technology a Big Deal to Parkinson's?
May 2010
Is the PD SURG Trial Another Surge Forward for DBS Therapy?
April 2010
Cycling in PD in Those Who Can't Walk: Is it Possible?
March 2010
New iPS Stem Cells for PD: What Does it Mean?
February 2010
Time for Comprehensive Care Networks for PD
January 2010
Is Parkinson's Disease a Prion Disease?
December 2009
Parkinson's Disease Linked to Gaucher's Disease
November 2009
Brain Cells Keep Time Stamps: Implications for Parkinson's Disease Therapies
October 2009
Is it Safe to Have an MRI with a DBS in Place?
September 2009
Take Care of Your Bones as They Are Affected in Parkinson's Disease (Even in Men)
August 2009
Is it Time to Start Paying Attention to Pain Symptoms in Parkinson's Disease Patients?
July 2009
Glutathione Fails to Demonstrate Significant Improvement in PD Symptoms
June 2009
Keeping an Eye on Trials Important to the Parkinson's Disease Patient
May 2009
Increased Risk of Melanoma in Parkinson's Disease
April 2009
Finally a DBS Expert Consensus Statement Aimed at Their True Customers: The Patients
March 2009
Pesticides and Environmental Exposure in Parkinson's disease: Should We Stay Away From the Stink Truck?
February 2009
Is Exercise Effective Treatment and Protection Against PD?
January 2009
Why are Transplant Trials Struggling to Succeed in the Treatment of PD?
December 2008
Are Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors Disease Modifying or Neuroprotective in PD?
November 2008
Update on Gene Therapy for Parkinson's Disease
Each month, we will feature a new column by NPF's National Medical Director, Dr. Michael Okun, on the latest developments in Parkinson's disease research. Read the latest "What's Hot in PD?" below.
© 2015 National Parkinson Foundation | Privacy & Terms of Use


text:
UBS and Climate Change--Warming Up to Global Action?
Felix Oberholzer-Gee; Forest Reinhardt; Elizabeth A. Raabe
Price: $6.93
Marco Suter, Executive Vice-Chairman, UBS Board of Directors, carefully studied the chart on his desk. It showed the public commitment of major financial institutions to help mitigate global warming. Evidently, UBS lagged behind its competitors. The graph was part of a report that environmental specialists and senior executives at UBS had compiled. It suggested the company adopt a more progressive policy on climate change. Suter thought about the options that the working group had generated. These ranged from stabilizing the company's current carbon emissions to complete carbon neutrality. The UBS Corporate Responsibility Committee would meet early next week. Suter wondered which option he should support.
Learning objective:
To decide whether UBS should go beyond its legal obligations to help mitigate climate change. Allows discussion of the likely strategic effects, if any, and the desirability of committing a company to standards that are more stringent than what is required by law. There is also an interesting question as to how UBS should reduce carbon emissions if it chooses to do so. Many environmentalists would like companies to reduce their energy consumption, but for UBS, it would be more cost-effective to purchase carbon certificates that are traded in over-the-counter markets.
Subjects Covered:
Climate change; Finance; Global business; Global warming; Social responsibility
- Geographic:Switzerland
- Industry: Banking
- Company Employee Count:70,000
- Company Revenue:$76.3 billion revenues
- Event Year Begin:2005
- Event Year End:2006
- Revision Date:
- Mar 16, 2007
- Publication Date:
- Feb 9, 2007
- Discipline:
- Organizational Behavior
- Source:
- Harvard Business School
- Product #:
- 18p, English PDF
- Also Available in:


text:
to page content
to site navigation
Explore the Entrepreneurship.org Resource Center to find resources. Designed with entrepreneurs in mind, our resource center allows you to find materials to grow great ideas.
Innovation, as a means to foster company growth, is subject to the same threats that face anything new or different, says the author. The challenge is to create a structure that fosters innovation.
The author asserts that when people are doing work that they love (and when the work itself is valued and recognized) then creativity will flourish.
This article, from informIT.com, advises doing some hard thinking about how to set pricing for products offered on your eCommerce site.
Thomas M. Siebel shares his principles for meeting the complex demands of customers who want to interact seamlessly with companies across various platforms.
Boost your bottom line by taking the guesswork out of pricing. You can't make smart pricing decisions without taking your costs, competitors, customers, and salespeople into account. But the right price for a product or service should rest on one thing -- the value that a product or service provides.
Companies need to generate customer service and customer satisfaction-two different things-to drive increased customer loyalty, according to this article. Entrepreneurs should ask their customers whether they would do business with them again and whether they would recommend them to others.
How can you come up with innovations as a scientist would? You need to dream big, come up with an expansive set of goals, and then break your plan down into a series of simple steps. Also put in place the best possible team and be sure to develop your plan B.
Having your company run like a well-oiled machine may not be enough. A company is not a machine, but a living entity. For true organizational alignment, a company needs to understand its sense of self, its values, and how it is perceived in the marketplace. Initiatives coming from a company's core values when matched to customer values have a better chance for success.
This article covers the evolution of a UCSD engineer's innovation nearly all the way from idea to commercialization. It also shows how San Diego's entrepreneurial community rallies around the entrepreneur to help him clear the hurdles to market.
Retaining customers by rewarding them may not only drive sales during slow seasons, but can also build targeted sales the rest of the year round. Marketing the program to the most committed shoppers can yield higher profitability, as well. This guide includes links to specific resources for analyzing purchase patterns, marketing the launch of a new program, and measuring the results.
Want to get connected? Sign up to receive regular news, polls and updates from The Kauffman Foundation.
A robust online curriculum for entrepreneurs.
Explore Founders School >
A network of U.S. cities facilitating a weekly entrepreneur education program. Go to 1 Million Cups >
Whether you are starting or growing a company, FastTrac will help you live your dream at each stage.
Get started with FastTrac >


text:
|Kosher Spring Picnic
Celebrate a Delicious Lag B'Omer
On the 33rd day of the Omer, the period between Passover and Shavuos, many celebrate with a festive picnic. The explanations begin with the Omer period itself, those forty-nine days that are counted off one by one between the two festivals. This is a time of semi-mourning, when weddings and other celebrations are forbidden. There are several explanations as to why the 33rd day, Lag B'Omer is a happy day, interrupting the sadness of the Omer period.
Whether you are planning a Lag B'Omer picnic for Sunday, April 28, or enjoying a picnic at other times during the year, we have gathered ten suggestions for scrumptious picnic foods.
BEET SALAD: Peel beets and grate them (a food processor will keep the juice contained). Add pistachios or hazelnuts; dress with orange zest and juice, and olive oil. Add bits of goat cheese and chopped parsley. (Recipe adapted from the The New York Times)
PESTO CHICKEN ROLLS: Season and grill chicken cutlets. Brush lavash or any other wrap–type bread with pesto; layer with the chicken, sun–dried tomatoes and arugula; roll up and cut on the bias. (Recipe adapted from the The New York Times)
CURRIED EGG SALAD: Make egg salad with hard–cooked eggs, mayo, curry powder, Dijon mustard, fresh lime juice, salt, pepper, cilantro, red onion and, if you like, diced apple. (Recipe adapted from The New York Times)
CORNFLAKE CHICKEN BITES: Cut boneless chicken breasts into small pieces. Dip in parve rice milk; dredge in seasoned crushed corn flake crumbs, cornmeal or panko bread crumbs. Pan–fry in oil, drain, cool and eat cold with celery sticks, with parve ranch dressing such as Mauzone brand. (Recipe adapted from The New York Times)
COLD PEANUT NOODLES: Cook Chinese egg noodles or regular spaghetti. Drain and rinse. Toss with sesame oil, peanut butter , sugar, soy sauce, ginger, rice vinegar, black pepper (lots) and chili oil (optional). At the picnic, toss in some seeded cucumber, chopped scallion and if desired boneless chicken pieces or kosher faux shrimp. (Recipe adapted from The New York Times)
GAZPACHO TO GO: Combine a couple of pounds of ripe tomatoes, one of cucumbers, a slice or two of bread, olive oil, vinegar, garlic, salt and pepper in a blender. Chill and pour into a thermos. (Recipe adapted from the New York Times)
ISRAELI SALAD: Toss green and black olives, parsley and mint, salt and pepper, bits of chopped–up lemon (rinds and all; preserved lemon is even better), chopped seeded tomatoes, chopped seeded cucumbers and chopped red pepper. When ready to serve at picnic, mix with olive oil and garnish with toasted garlic flavored pita chips. (Recipe adapted from The New York Times)
LAYERED PICNIC IN–A–JAR by Melissa D'Arabian of The Food Network.
PESTO POTATO SALAD by The Neely's.
PICNIC TIPS and TRICKS:
Let us know how you picnic, and share your favorite foods to go! May you enjoy Lag Ba'Omer, and may your spring and summer days be sunny – each day a picnic!


text:
Hi! We're GrooveLily, a theatrical power-pop trio consisting of Valerie Vigoda, Brendan Milburn, and Gene Lewin. If you've never heard us before, listen to this:
We write musicals and perform in them sometimes, and we play concerts whenever we can.
Hi! We're GrooveLily, a theatrical power-pop trio consisting of Valerie Vigoda, Brendan Milburn, and Gene Lewin. If you've never heard us before, listen to this:
We write musicals and perform in them sometimes, and we play concerts whenever we can.
Hey all – when we added a December 23 show, many people jumped to that one. But our original December 24 date still stands – and for today only, the good people at 54 Below are offering a FLASH SALE for our Christmas Eve performance of STRIKING 12! We can't wait to see you.
Hey all! Thanks to everyone on our email list who answered the survey about STRIKING 12 on Christmas Eve. The answer was a resounding YES, and so we are coming to 54 Below for TWO PERFORMANCES ONLY: December 23 & 24 at 7 PM.
This won't be the last time we perform it – our grand plans to have a FAREWELL TOUR this year have become JUST THESE TWO GIGS. And consequently, these are the ONLY STRIKING 12 SHOWS THIS YEAR. BUT NOT THE LAST OF ALL TIME EVER.
However, you never know when the zombie apocalypse is coming, so in case we're all devoured before next December, buy tickets today.
…even though you haven't heard from us much lately. Gene is in town playing with Audra McDonald tonight at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, and we got to catch up in his hotel room. We miss playing together and will get back to doing that again before too long!
It's been a while, and Brendan and Val are doing another duo show in LA:
Monday, August 26
Met Theatre
1089 N. Oxford
Hollywood, CA
Tickets have just gone on sale: only $15 with the promo code "FRIEND."
Val here – I'm at the University of Texas in Austin (along with director/choreographer Janet Roston and music director Ryan O'Connell) working on our MIDSUMMER show at the Texas Musical Theatre Workshop. Brendan is being single dad and google chatting with me nonstop as we work on the show together…and we're very excited about the direction the piece has taken. It's now truly our own musical loosely adapted from the Shakespeare – and so it's got a new title: MIDSUMMER NIGHT – zippy and to the point, just like the show.
The good folks here at UT Austin have given us a cast of 17, beautiful space and opportunity to work, and a staged reading which is happening on Thursday. If you're anywhere near Austin, come on down – it's free and open to the public:
Thursday, June 27
The B. Iden Payne Theatre
located in the F. Loren Winship Drama Building (WIN)
300 East 23rd Street, Austin, TX 78712
Check out the new blog entry up at Milburn & Vigoda – we're putting our beloved "Every Seven" project on a hiatus for a bit, due to…lots of songwriting.


text:
LiveSOMERSET FLOODING: David Cameron announces details of flood support packages
This live event has finished
- Dredging to begin by end of March.
- Rivers Tone and Parrett to be de-silted.
This live event has finished
Please log in to enable comment sorting
10:27am Thu 20 Feb 14
Hollow Willow says...
10:44am Thu 20 Feb 14
Samej1 says...
1:22pm Thu 20 Feb 14
MR.GOF says...
2:47pm Thu 20 Feb 14
nat_11 says...
2:49pm Thu 20 Feb 14
nat_11 says...
MR.GOF wrote:sounds like a good plan, you should email the environment agency, that sound like a feasible idea!
waste of time,what will happen when we have a high tide`s and then lots of rain,the tone backing up again,water overflowing back into the fields again,great!.
i know open, or have gates up at dunball to let out the water of sedgemoor drain when the tide goes out then to bring the water level down and stop this backing up,how hard can this be?
1:13am Fri 21 Feb 14
david1966 says...
10:41am Fri 21 Feb 14
Incognito! says...
11:39am Fri 21 Feb 14
nat_11 says...
david1966 wrote:you been living under a rock or something, haven't you seen the army building flood defences, Cameron meeting with local councils and the environment agency, talking about resolutions and finance,
I think the Australia article is tripe and merely an advertisement for said company. If thousands are looking at going from the west country then maybe the levels can be left as - NOT!
Who decided to put this in the live feed needs a kicking, look at how everyone has pulled together over the past couple of months because they care about the area and not because they are going to flee at a bit of water.
3:26pm Sat 22 Feb 14
IanIEA says...
10:16am Tue 25 Feb 14
ShoulderToShoulder says...
Comments are closed on this article.


text:
Marmite 'love and hate parties' by DDB UK
DDB UK is launching a new brand campaign for Marmite and has created two new political parties to go head-to-head in an election battle to determine if the UK is a nation of Marmite lovers or haters.
Rolling news coverage of the election campaign will run from the dedicated politics team at the Marmite News Network. The love party and hate party both have full manifesto and biographies of their party leaders on Facebook.


text:
The Troposphere is an H2No® Performance Standard waterproof/breathable 2.5-layer nylon hard shell with a generous dose of stretch for full mobility while skiing or alpine climbing.
2.5-layer H2No® Performance Standard shell fabrics are completely waterproof, windproof, breathable and highly packable for backpacking, alpine climbing and backcountry skiing. They combine a water-repellent shell fabric with a waterproof/breathable membrane and a protective top coat barrier without needing a protective lining fabric. A raised print layer is applied to decreased layering friction and increase moisture management.
2.5-layer H2No® Performance Standard shell fabrics are coated with DWR (durable water repellent) fabric finish that repels light rain and snow. In conjunction with a waterproof/breathable barrier, the DWR finish keeps the outer fabric from becoming saturated so that the breathable barrier can do its job.
All products bearing the H2No mark have been vigorously tested for durability in our 24 Killer Wash.
We promote fair labor practices, safe working conditions and environmental responsibility throughout the Patagonia supply chain.
Below are the suppliers that impact the Patagonia Men's Troposphere Jacket
View our supply chain


text:
Dr. Kennedy and Staff Group Photos for website.
Todd Barnett Photography is an Anchorage, Alaska Wedding, High School Senior and Portrait Photographer. Todd Barnett Photography is anything but your average Anchorage, Alaska wedding, senior high school and portrait photographer. Each wedding is special and treated with care and creativity not often found with other Anchorage wedding photography studios. Your wedding day is carefully crafted to offer one of a kind unique photography experience in the Anchorage, Alaska and surrounding areas. This is Anchorage Alaska wedding photography at its finest. Todd Barnett Photography is currently based in Anchorage, Alaska. Offering wedding, high school senior and portrait services to all of Anchorage, Alaska. We strive to become a Premier Alaska Wedding Photography studio in the surrounding Anchorage area. This is Todd Barnett's #1 goal for 2015/2016. Creative, Stylish and Fun. These are the words typically used to describe Todd Barnett Photography, an Anchorage, Alaska wedding, high school senior and portrait photographer. We take pride in offering our clients the type of Anchorage, Alaska wedding, high school senior and portrait photography they are looking for. It's one thing to take pictures, its another to create art for our clients homes. Serving Anchorage, South Anchorage Eagle River and beyond, Todd Barnett Photography offers Anchorage wedding photography coverage in the Anchorage and surrounding areas, including but not limited to, South Anchorage, Wasilla, Palmer, Eagle River and the surrounding areas. In addition, we also offer wedding photography coverage in Charleston, SC and beyond with advance notice. We are located conveniently in the Anchorage area. Please call or email us for more information. To learn more about Anchorage, Wedding, Portrait and Senior High School Photography contact us anytime.


text:
Picnic Plus Lido " 2 in 1 " Cooler Bag
|Eligible for $20 Off Your Order of $100 Or More! (see promotion details)
|Members of The League get 5% back when you spend $100! (see promotion details)
Product Details
This portable Picnic Plus Lido 2-in-1 Cooler Bag features two separate full-zippered compartments, a large thermal foil section that's large enough to carry a pizza box and a large water-resistant section perfect for wet bathing suits, towels and accessories.
- 2 separate full zippered compartments
- Large thermal foil section holds drinks, food and snacks
- Large water-resistant section
- Equipped with set of 2 plates, cups and flatware
- Dimensions: W 24" x D 8" x H 17"
Product Recommendations
Product Reviews
Reviewed by 1 customer
- Compact
- Durable
- Easy To Use
- Improves Experience
Best Uses
Comments about Picnic Plus Lido " 2 in 1 " Cooler Bag:
I have a rental home in the tropics. This bag has combined two items that I usually provide for guests: a cooler AND a beach bag. It is wonderful! I also purchased another one to use for lunch delivery for my daughters volleyball team before games...works well! One side for chips and dessert items, one side for sandwiches that needed to be cooled!


text:
Fed up with being the region's number one brothel hot spot, a Bavarian city council is discussing introducing a total ban on prostitution. The only problem: police say the city's many sex workers are too well-behaved to be forced out.
Amberg in Bavaria has the country's highest concentration of brothels, with 60 bordellos in a city of just 43,500 inhabitants, wrote the Süddeutsche Zeitung on Friday.
And business is booming, according to solicitor Bernhard Mitko, who told the paper the number of prostitutes in Amberg is up 50 percent in the past 18 months. Now, in an attempt to clean up the city's image, local authorities now want to banish the city's sex workers, or at the very least impose a restricted area.
Florian Fuchs, head of the local Social Democrats (SPD), is sick of Amberg's reputation as "number one brothel spot" in the region and, with the support of the City Council, is pushing for a total ban, wrote the paper.
The move comes after several residents complained of drunken customers ringing the wrong door bell late at night, houses losing value due to their proximity to the brothels, or even of being disturbed by loud noises coming through open windows in summer.
But an outright ban may be difficult to impose, particularly as the police have no such complaints and told the paper that Amberg's prostitutes are well-behaved and discrete. They have also raised concerns that criminalising the sex industry and driving it underground will cause more problems than it solves, wrote the paper.


text:
A visit to the Escape Spa & Health Club can be for two very distinct purposes to either improve or maintain your fitness or it can be to unwind and relax with a day's pampering and we encourage both choices.
Facilities include:
In addition there is access across to our Relaxation Suite part of the Escape Spa. On our outer decking area overlooking the 40 acre Urban Fen is our outdoor infinity pool. Immerse yourself in 32◦ heat and relax on our underwater loungers or feel the force of our power jets on stressed shoulders. Our Gymnasium offers state of the art equipment and our treadmills provide personalised televisions for your own use during your workout. For those wishing to join our gymnasium we offer a wide host of classes along with the guidance of a personalised fitness trainer who can personalise a programme suited to you and your lifestyle.
If you are simply in need of a relaxing spa treatment then our Escape Spa with a wide selection of Aveda treatments is perfect for you. Our Aveda product store means you can decide to purchase the Aveda products best suited to you following careful consultation with your therapist.
Gym Opening Hours
Monday to Friday 07.00 - 21.30
Saturdays 08.00 - 21.30
Sundays & Bank Holidays 08.00 - 20.00
Children 09.00 - 19.00
Children under 17 years must be accompanied by an adult club member at all times.
Spa Opening Hours
Monday to Saturday 11.00 – 18.00
Sunday 10.00 – 16.00
Should you wish to combine an indulgent spa treatment with a well-deserved getaway then Click Here and view our current spa residential breaks


text:
Lovers lives are complicated by city law, feuding faerie royalty, and, yes, love. Sir Ian McKellen, Prunella Scales, Frank Duncan, and Joan Hart perform Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream.
(P)2011 Saland Publishing
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.


text: Well it's been about since 2011 of the release of Sonic Generations. And all we had so far is mini sonic game releases. Sonic 4, Sonic CD, remastered Sonic Adventure 2, etc... And I have fun playing them and replaying them. But I ask myself "When is there going to a an actual big sonic game title release?" I've seen the website domain names, rumors and etc... So there has been a "tease" or something on the summer of sonic website. So my hopes are up for that. I hope there is some offical news from Sega for a new big sonic title soon. Does anyone else think we need a new big sonic title now? Or if there will be any news about it anytime soon?


text:
Animal garden statues provide a dramatic beautiful natural touch that every garden needs. Since gardens are, by definition, green space, that may sound ironic but a realistic animal yard statue just adds that bit of extra natural appeal. Animal statues pay homage to the unique beauty that has been created by nature's palette, even if they happen to be creatures that went extinct millions of years ago.
In the case of dinosaurs, that happened to be 65 million years in the past and although those magnificent massive reptiles have been long gone, we haven't stopped being fascinated with those amazing prehistoric animals. Kids in particular are especially taken with dinosaurs and will love any of our fantastic prehistoric statues. Our Jurassic-Sized Triceratops makes for a majestic prehistoric animal addition for any backyard and will be a major hit at a hotel or restaurant. Kids of all ages will be amazed when they see the fine details that help to bring this and other dinosaurs "back to life".
Another of those impressive Dino sculptures is the Jurassic-Sized Velociraptor and the T-Rex Dinosaur Garden Sculpture.
Put a dinosaur animal yard statue on display to turn your garden into the most unique backyard on the block!