<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: From the Kitchen #43</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thinking-allowed.com.au/2010/03/17/from-the-kitchen-43/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thinking-allowed.com.au/2010/03/17/from-the-kitchen-43/</link>
	<description>Including weekly musings by Daan Spijer.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:51:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tarwin</title>
		<link>http://www.thinking-allowed.com.au/2010/03/17/from-the-kitchen-43/comment-page-1/#comment-212</link>
		<dc:creator>Tarwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinking-allowed.com.au/?p=539#comment-212</guid>
		<description>Trains: I&#039;m pretty sure they&#039;ve got it right - and if you asked the engineers who did the calculations on how many carriages to run together to get the best breaking speeds with the current faulty trains you&#039;d get a very complicated and non-understandable answer; and you&#039;d suddenly rather this &quot;lie to children&quot; style answer.

Climate: 90%. Sure. What&#039;s wrong with that? It&#039;s very scientific. Science ONLY works in likeliness - never in certainties - otherwise you&#039;d be talking dogma, rather than statistical likelihood right? I&#039;m 73% sure of it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trains: I&#8217;m pretty sure they&#8217;ve got it right &#8211; and if you asked the engineers who did the calculations on how many carriages to run together to get the best breaking speeds with the current faulty trains you&#8217;d get a very complicated and non-understandable answer; and you&#8217;d suddenly rather this &#8220;lie to children&#8221; style answer.</p>
<p>Climate: 90%. Sure. What&#8217;s wrong with that? It&#8217;s very scientific. Science ONLY works in likeliness &#8211; never in certainties &#8211; otherwise you&#8217;d be talking dogma, rather than statistical likelihood right? I&#8217;m 73% sure of it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

