I've heard the original idea behind a lot of these strange riders are basically just to keep the production managers on their toes. I'm pretty sure it was Led Zeppelin that ordered at every concert a bunch of M&Ms with no brown ones, the idea being that if there were brown M&Ms, the production manager didn't read the rider correctly and the band could duck out to avoid a bad gig due to shotty managing.
Although I imagine it could also be a matter of just things that they like and examples of "living the good life" but at least some of those riders are for screening purposes.
You can't have the second one without the framework set up by the first.
It's all good to have ideas, but you can't have groundbreaking theories that change the way the world works and the people on the world see their role in it change without the backbone of knowledge that's produced by the scientific method.
Maybe it's stodgy, but if you're not an experimentalist, there still is a spot for you in the scientific discourse... but if we didn't have all of those experiments and documented observations backing it up, nothing we say would hold any weight against whatever trippy dreamstate someone else might be coming at the problem from - we have actual data on our side.
Basically, the Scientific Method is probably the most important innovation of the last thousand years. It's the thing that's allowed us all of this wonder, and promises even more wonder in the future, because everything that comes out of it and remains standing is basically true, and we can build technologies that use it. At least until one of those amazing insights comes along like Einstein and twists the whole thing and warps our preconceptions.
Einstein's thought wouldn't have been revolutionary if 1) Newton and many many scientists hadn't been working under a different model that seemed to work wonderfully, that was created by using the scientific method, and 2) The scientific method hadn't been used to verify his intuitions.
that ship has assuredly already sailed, come back to harbour let off its bilge water, gone back out to see, been struck by a freak lightning bolt and sank, never to be seen again.
We wouldn't have heard about it for starters. I definitely agree though.. there are few legitimate reasons to break a person's nose, and "He touched my butt at the pub" probably isn't one of them.
I don't think it would necessarily be a matter of pitch but the decibels produced by tiny lungs pushing air past tiny focal cords would probably be pretty small. I'd say if you wanted to go the real physics approach, they'd probably be really really quiet. So quiet that few people would be able to understand them, although little kids might, and even then, it would more be a matter of distance to the ears, rather then some nature of the soundwaves "missing" our ears - tiny sound waves just wouldn't propogate through the air as readily as large ones.
But if you're going to go the hardcore biology/physics route, rather then just handwaving that aspect away, I can't imagine a tiny tiny brain, even in a tiny tiny person, would produce anything close to the cognition that we have. Insects have decentralized nervous systems, making their whole body sort of a brain, and they're insects with insect levels of cognition (not a whole lot)
Although I imagine it could also be a matter of just things that they like and examples of "living the good life" but at least some of those riders are for screening purposes.
I always laugh thinking about what the owner of that car must have thought if the impression survived the night.
It's all good to have ideas, but you can't have groundbreaking theories that change the way the world works and the people on the world see their role in it change without the backbone of knowledge that's produced by the scientific method.
Maybe it's stodgy, but if you're not an experimentalist, there still is a spot for you in the scientific discourse... but if we didn't have all of those experiments and documented observations backing it up, nothing we say would hold any weight against whatever trippy dreamstate someone else might be coming at the problem from - we have actual data on our side.
Basically, the Scientific Method is probably the most important innovation of the last thousand years. It's the thing that's allowed us all of this wonder, and promises even more wonder in the future, because everything that comes out of it and remains standing is basically true, and we can build technologies that use it. At least until one of those amazing insights comes along like Einstein and twists the whole thing and warps our preconceptions.
Einstein's thought wouldn't have been revolutionary if 1) Newton and many many scientists hadn't been working under a different model that seemed to work wonderfully, that was created by using the scientific method, and 2) The scientific method hadn't been used to verify his intuitions.
Vive La Scientific Method.
But if you're going to go the hardcore biology/physics route, rather then just handwaving that aspect away, I can't imagine a tiny tiny brain, even in a tiny tiny person, would produce anything close to the cognition that we have. Insects have decentralized nervous systems, making their whole body sort of a brain, and they're insects with insect levels of cognition (not a whole lot)