Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, July 20, 2009 | Reason : Education | print version Print | Comments |

Document Why is science important?

by Alom Shaha

Thanks to Scott for the link.
http://whyscience.co.uk/

blank“Happy is he who gets to know the reasons for things”. I wish this 2000 year-old statement from Virgil was enough to deal with the question that must plague teachers all over the world — “what’s the point of this?” But, as someone who’s just returned to the teaching profession after a seven-year break, I can assure you it’s not.

I teach at an inner city comprehensive school where science, as in all UK schools, is compulsory for all students up to the age of 16. As well as trying to get my students to understand electrical circuits or Newton’s Laws, I make an effort to convey to them that science is important, that it’s something worth doing for reasons beyond the need to pass exams.

Anyone who knows me will confirm that I wear my passion for science on my sleeve, but I don’t think that’s enough to convince all my students that science is important. Nor do I think, like some in my profession, that the importance of science is implicit in the courses we teach, that it will somehow seep into my students’ consciousness through the sheer number of hours they spend doing “science” at school.

So, I’ve started this film and blog project in which I want to ask the question “why is science important?” to people who feel the importance of science so deeply that they have dedicated their lives to it — working scientists, science writers and, of course, science teachers. I’m making a documentary, funded by The Wellcome Trust, and running this “collective blog” as I work on the film. Bits from the blog will appear in the film and bits of the film will appear on the blog. The idea is that the two will inform and enrich each other.

I’m hoping that this project will help me arrive at an answer to this question; an answer that speaks to readers of this blog, as well as my students, and convinces them that science is important. Furthermore, I want this project to reach people who don’t think science is important and convince them otherwise. I want it to demonstrate that science is absolutely crucial to the future wellbeing of our world, that its contribution to culture is as significant as that of music, art or literature and, most important of all, that a sound appreciation of science is vital to realising your potential as a human being. I want this project to make it far, far easier for any science teacher to be able to answer that inevitable question, ‘what’s the point of all this?”

So please take a look and, if you’ve got something to add, please get in touch.

— Alom Shaha

"
Posted: Monday, July 20, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 37 of 37 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #398279 by Dhamma on July 20, 2009 at 4:02 pm

avatarWhat a brilliant project!

I remember myself constantly asking my teachers why we had to learn this or that, and I never got good answers, so this project may help them.

Really, it's annoying how stupid some teachers are. Every time we were taught how to do something in e.g. maths and you asked why it was done in a certain way, you always got the answer "don't ask, just do". So I really think I wasn't taught the mechanisms behind the techniques, which is really sad.

Other Comments by Dhamma

2. Comment #398280 by HenryFord on July 20, 2009 at 4:08 pm

avatarIsn't it odd that schools so often teach what something is, rather than how you get to it. I have always loved history, but for a long time I was completely put off it by teachers. I had a number of different teachers over the years, due to moving schools, but there are two lessons I distinctly remember from two separate teachers. The first taught to always question the motives of the person citing the evidence, and the second was to question the evidence itself, whether it was primary, secondary or so on (Chinese whispers).

All other lessons I ever had on history were remembering names, faces, silly customs and stuff that was not important. All have been forgotten (not too disimilar to many science lessons). But those underpinning ideas of HOW we got to the good stuff has remained with me ever since. That's real teaching.

Other Comments by HenryFord

3. Comment #398295 by DalaiDrivel on July 20, 2009 at 6:28 pm

avatarI wonder if school education would be vastly improved with compulsory reading of "Unweaving the Rainbow."

I'm would say that the history, the context, of science is more important than the science itself. RD has stated this in other words when he points out that many of us appreciate music without being musicians. With many of us being non-scientists, the merit of performing experiments in school without an explanation of their historical import is, and I think the analogy has been made before, like a description of an opera via pitch frequencies. I cannot remember how to work with electron valences and it doesn't matter now, but I know at least some of the history of the atom as postulated by Democritus, discovered by Dalton, and further investigated by Bohr etc... That I did not learn in school. I learned through books written by science popularisers.

Science is fascinating when its meaning is laid bare in the dynamic context of humanity's development, as an opera is fascinating and meaningful when it is conveyed in the dynamic context of story and song, as opposed to digitally transcribed.

To say that through science, we can state that we know something, is a profoundly powerful statement- I'm not quite sure how you could impress that enough. Every important question we have, science is the very best game in town to answer, having already done so or in the process of doing so. Every hope we have for a better world science plays a role in, technologically, philosophically or methodologically.

I speak for myself, but to view history, and to project the future, through mankind's gradual and ongoing mastery of science is extremely eye-opening, satisfying and invigorating.

I believe you can hook students with the accomplishments of science in developing humanity- as I say, in context- and as a testimony to the power and intrinsically justified pursuit of knowledge.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

4. Comment #398305 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on July 20, 2009 at 7:57 pm

As an educator, I can speak to some of the reasons why the "how to get there" is ignored in favour of teaching the bare results, at least in American schools. Students are given a short period of time to master a wide variety of concepts, even in what should be fairly confined courses (biology, for example). As a result, teachers often cover a large amount of material with little or no depth beyond that required to pass whatever exam the state has set for the course, and this has become more widespread since Bush's NCLB act of 2002.
As for some teachers being stupid, I can't refute that. More likely your teachers were education majors, rather than majors in whatever field they taught. From personal experience with this, I know that science teachers in my state (NC) who major in secondary education only have to complete 50 credit hours of science courses, with more than half of it survey courses outside whatever discipline they choose. Compare that with a BS in Bio where they might complete 90 hours of science, with the difference coming in their specialised field. I co-taught Physical Science (Chemistry and Physics wrapped into a one semester course, don't get me started on the inanity of that) with a woman who had an undergraduate degree in meteorology... and a total of six hours in either subject (none in Physics whatsoever). The long and short of it is that science needs to be taught by people who have been exposed to and trained in science, with some education training, rather than the other way 'round.

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

5. Comment #398308 by kyleclements on July 20, 2009 at 8:50 pm

" I want it to demonstrate that science is ... as significant as that of music, art or literature..."

I would say that science is MORE significant than music, art and literature. and I'm an artist.

unlike every other discipline, science is self-critical in a way that no other field is, and it is always expanding. Any scientist today knows more than Newton or Einstein ever did about physics, but today's artists/writers/musicians are still tackling the same ideas/themes.

Other Comments by kyleclements

6. Comment #398311 by Alternative Carpark on July 20, 2009 at 9:08 pm

avatarAm I the only one that finds the concept of children living in the 21st century being unaware of the importance of science absolutely staggering?

Clearly, the whole education system needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

7. Comment #398313 by Scep on July 20, 2009 at 9:22 pm

Science should be the base of our education system. It will lead to knowledge and transform into wisdom and this wisdom should guide our actions. Too many of us confuse wisdom with old traditional beliefs that have been given to us by pretending authorities. These old wisdoms are not based on evidence, truth and knowledge but on faith, tradition and authority. They have little value in today’s world. They even prevent us from realising the true natural miracle our existence really is.

That we are here at all on our pale blue dot is a miracle, but not in the sense that a supernatural God created us. The miracle of life is amazing and wonderful but it is a completely natural event. Those of us who have the strength, courage and time to reach wisdom via education and knowledge soon find out that there are no supernatural occurrences. We find out that everything is governed by the laws of nature and most is explainable through these laws.

And things that the laws of nature can’t explain will never be explained no matter how hard the pretending authorities and faith heads try.

Before Charles Darwin it made sense to believe in a supernatural God. After good old Charlie we started to realise, and today we know, there is only Einstein’s natural God, in essence the law of nature. There is absolutely no evidence for a supernatural deity and if one “knows” otherwise the evidence should be presented.

The door to a reason-based spirituality is wide open; it is called reality and truth.
The word truth has a variety of meanings, from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact, reason and reality (the scientific truth).

We all live in the same realty space, so please be very skeptical if someone is trying to sell you his own custom made reality. Have the courage to be guided by truth, honesty and reason. It will liberate you.

Have the courage to believe in science.

Other Comments by Scep

8. Comment #398314 by Alternative Carpark on July 20, 2009 at 9:44 pm

avatarExcellent video, by the way.

Du Sautoy better shape up or this guy will do his job for him.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

9. Comment #398321 by jonjermey on July 21, 2009 at 12:47 am

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment and argue that it is far more important to learn scientific method than to actually learn vast numbers of the facts that make up current science. Not because there is anything wrong with them but because we only retain what we use, and for most of us chemistry, biology and physics will never be used enough to make them memorable; like the differential calculus and the dates of King Henry III, they will fade rapidly away to the Internet, where they can be looked up if needed. By the time scientific facts get into school textbooks they are usually a couple of decades out of date anyway.

Scientific METHOD, however, can and should be applied every day. Add in some logic and a selection of exposed fallacies, and you have a solid course in critical thinking which can and should be compulsory for all children before their thirteenth birthday.

Other Comments by jonjermey

10. Comment #398326 by Jos Gibbons on July 21, 2009 at 1:17 am

Did Adam-Hart Davis describe the MMR vaccine as a problem? I surely hope he didn't mean that! Maybe he meant MRSA ... At least such a strange mix-up isn't as bad as him being in the anti-MMR camp! I must admit, that bit worried me.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

11. Comment #398327 by hungarianelephant on July 21, 2009 at 1:40 am

avatar10. Comment #398326 by Jos Gibbons
Did Adam-Hart Davis describe the MMR vaccine as a problem?

MMR tends to start a lot of shouting rather than rational debate, but it could be a useful case study. Start with an acknowledgement that all drugs have side effects and get the class to understand that you have to weigh the benefits against the risks. Then move on to how you would go about evaluating the benefits and the risks. Allow broad, sweeping statements at first, then challenge them all. By the time you've done this with a few of them, most of the class will get the idea of what is going on. And in particular, what are scientific questions and what are not.

It isn't hands-on science, exactly, but it's rational analysis, which is just as important.

(After writing this, just noticed jonjermey's comment 9 - I completely agree, and perhaps this ties in.)

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

12. Comment #398339 by Tyler Durden on July 21, 2009 at 3:18 am

avatarScience is important otherwise the void is filled with nonsense!

Teen pregnancy and disease rates rose sharply during Bush years

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/20/bush-teen-pregnancy-cdc-report

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

13. Comment #398341 by John Locke on July 21, 2009 at 3:25 am

avatarPeople not understanding the importance of science? It's simply science having bad PR

although i do hate the notion of "brand marketing" and the like, the trouble is that science has a terrible public image and needs a revamp. i say this as someone who has had a bit of a change in opinion (towards the more positive) over the past few years, with regards to science. And even then i would say that i have always had a fairly good understanding of science compared to average joe (which isnt saying much).

the thing is, much like Bill Hick's immortal quip about there being no positive drugs stories in the news, only slightly wacky or bad science (i.e. when something goes wrong) makes the news. i'm not someone who blames the 'evil' media and the politics of fear - they are just selling their stories - funnily enough things like this isnt very exciting news:

"in other news today; a man sucessfully used a microwave in gloucester. the result - super noodles..."

In addition to this, papers (particularly) report a constant stream of random results from investigations from around the world, to those not able to scrutinise by reading between the lines or investigating further, it seems like an endless string of contradicting "scientific research". a good example is coffee - one minute it is proclaimed as healthy, the next as unhealthy by the papers, but taken out of context. it may well be healthy (with regards to alzheimers - actually the caffeine in it - thus showing the twisting of the story) but unhealthy for those with high blood pressure (because of the subscript of the fact that many people have it with cream and or sugar for example) - but to a casual observer coffee is healthy one minute, unhealthy the next - so people dont trust science.

on top of all this there is the tendency for some scientists to be snobby - when pushed some of my closer science-based degree-qualified fiends can be very condescending to those who dont have a thorough science education - even if they completely understand the discussion at hand.

sorry for a waffle but felt it needed saying :)

Other Comments by John Locke

14. Comment #398351 by CaptainMandate on July 21, 2009 at 4:53 am

avatarJohn Locke

yes it did need saying

the media is totally to blame. there was a time when you had people who were into science (bit nerdy) and people who weren't (didn't care)

nowadays we live in this new-age of endarkenment, fully supported by the media where you now have the nerdy types and the anti-nerds. the ones who don't get science but feel empowerd to have an opinion on it.

I've received comments such as "science is a bully" (in reference to the Simon Singh case) without any irony. anti-science has the victim mentality of all bullies so justifies its attack through misrepresenting scientific news and creating a culture of fear (that can be eased with herbal remadies)

there's even a new language of anti-science. Nature used to be what science studied but nowadays you can sell any old crap by insisting it's "natural" (i.e. unsullied by the hand of nerd).

this morning for example, there was some non-news story about ice cream vans where the erporter fed his interviewee with the line "of course all your ice cream is natural so it's good for you isn't it£"

Personally I do blame the media even if you don't.

it's all very well saying they just report the news but they do it without responsibility. There was no front page shock-horror story about the bad-science that led to the MMR scare, no scary prediction of a future of increased deaths due to measles, just a small story. meanwhile today, children die of measles

Science is knowledge. With knowledge you can dispel fear. without fear you're not very easy to control so it's no wonder there's rarely been a political need to ensure science is reported accurately

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

15. Comment #398353 by God fearing Atheist on July 21, 2009 at 5:20 am

avatar

14. #398351 by CaptainMandate
"of course all your ice cream is natural so it's good for you isn't it"


"Have a few of these Amanita Phalloides (death cap) mushrooms, they are perfectly natural, so must be good for you!"

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

16. Comment #398354 by Jos Gibbons on July 21, 2009 at 5:23 am

Comment #398351 by CaptainMandate

The media probably causes more trouble than, say, bad teachers. One especially annoying thing is when they take every study, which a scientist would summarise by saying "In this experiment there was a significant correlation between A and B, which is interesting, raises some questions, and so further study is needed, especially to see if this correlation is replicable", and giving the bluntest interpretation they possibly can, one which the scientists themselves aren't giving. One interpretation is they want sensationalism for their headline, and they do want that in general, so it's a plausible explanation. But the side-effect of their doing this all the time with science, namely that science seems so willing to change its mind that people think it's shown to be untrustworthy by its own fruits (especially, for instance, with what causes cancer), serves the interests of many journalists, and I suspect some want to create this long-term effect on people's opinions. It may be the biggest impact on the public's views they ever have. I guess sensationalism serves the anti-science lobby best of all. But I hate them for it!

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

17. Comment #398355 by John Locke on July 21, 2009 at 5:24 am

avatarCaptainMandate:

Agree completely. i think you are right pointing out that the media have a responsibility. i was more dismissing people who talk of a fear-inducing media as if they sit in their offices cackling at new ideas of scaring the public that they conjure up. this is missing the point - they just sell stories and make things as interesting (exagerrating i'd say) as possible, and bad/scary news is more exciting.

i think in order for science to get a better understanding in the wide sense we need to return to the older definition of science - like Georges Sorel's "little science" - but in a positive manner. this means pointing out that other subjects - humanities particularly - do actually follow a scientific method of sorts.

science is investigation into the world we live in, be it society or nature, and so it is imperative that science be presented as understanding itself and not just men with white coats concocting in laboratories - the "nerds".

Other Comments by John Locke

18. Comment #398356 by CaptainMandate on July 21, 2009 at 5:25 am

avatarThanks GFA

just so long as they're not made with "preservatives"

I won't let any child of mine eat something that's been preserved from rotting in any way

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

19. Comment #398358 by John Locke on July 21, 2009 at 5:30 am

avatarorganic wine makes me laugh - no preservatives or pesticides - oh wait except the sulphites that are needed so it can travel more than 5 miles from the vinter...

Other Comments by John Locke

20. Comment #398360 by debaser71 on July 21, 2009 at 5:45 am

I don't think the problem is with schools or teachers...although, of course, there are some bad ones out there. The problem is that there are powerful forces out there with anti-science agendas.

Maybe I am the exception but I've had nothing but good experiences with publics schools. From my own schooling, to my mother's teaching, and now to my children's learning. I also teach my children; I don't rely on the schools to do that for me. School is a help but it isn't the be all end all to my children's education.

Also, for me, I never was interested in the history of science, or how some particular scientist discovered something. I just wanted to get right to it and learn about the why's and how's. Although today I am interested in learning the history of things. I guess it's that I want to know how and why first, then learn about the details of the history and discovery process.

Other Comments by debaser71

21. Comment #398363 by Shiva on July 21, 2009 at 6:14 am

avatarAwesome initiative!

This is surely welcomed by me :D





http://shiva82.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by Shiva

22. Comment #398364 by friendlypig on July 21, 2009 at 6:18 am

avatarGreat video, although it did take an hour to download!

The press carry a lot of responsibility for the way in which they present their slant on science. In the UK we all know how the discussion on the MMR vaccine was distorted several years ago and still causes ripples today.

Other Comments by friendlypig

23. Comment #398367 by Vanitas on July 21, 2009 at 7:04 am

avatarFascinating video. Amazing job, Alom.

Sometimes it just makes me angry though, when the question is asked "what's the point of this?" What's the point of art? of music? of sports? Why is it only science that has to have a point?

Other Comments by Vanitas

24. Comment #398372 by hungarianelephant on July 21, 2009 at 7:14 am

avatar19. Comment #398358 by John Locke

AFAIK organic wine isn't allowed to contain added sulphites - all wines have a small quantity of naturally occurring sulphites anyway, and these are allowed. That's certainly the rule in countries which take food labelling seriously. Probably not France then.

Even more off topic, sulphites are the largest barrier for people who think they don't enjoy red wine. Their palate detects a sharpness, or they might even get the sneezes. The solution is ever so simple - pour the wine into a large jug, then pour it back through a funnel into the bottle. Most of the sulphites will dissipate. It also aerates the wine, which is rarely a bad thing anyway, and softens up a tough old claret nicely.

See, science is important.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

25. Comment #398377 by John Locke on July 21, 2009 at 7:51 am

avatarRe: Hungarian Edmunds

I knew wine contains sulphites naturally but surely if none were in the wine would go off? i know someone who has a small vinyard in italy but doesnt bring the wine here cos he says it wont travel unless sulphites are added which he wont do. anyone with more knowledge on this know how they manage with organic wine? or are sulphites for the wine exept from organic classification as they are added after the process - the vine's soil may be certified organic, so they market it as oranic wine....

i will have a gander next time im in the supermarket and see if theyre being sneaky... :)

Other Comments by John Locke

26. Comment #398378 by CaptainMandate on July 21, 2009 at 7:59 am

avatarI shall do a little research later tonight

We have a bottle of organic tempranillo at home (co-op exclusive. it's very nice) so i'll check the ingredients

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

27. Comment #398407 by Lemniscate on July 21, 2009 at 9:53 am

avatarI thought this video was excellent. I don't agree with the AQA curriculum guy, though. The exams set just don't come up to scratch: There was an interesting report by SCORE on the quality of GCSE science examinations.

And this is what schools work towards in their science classes.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

28. Comment #398422 by Scep on July 21, 2009 at 10:23 am

jonjermey, you write:
“…it is far more important to learn the scientific method than to actually learn vast numbers of the facts that make up current science.”

You are right on.

Other Comments by Scep

29. Comment #398466 by Steven Mading on July 21, 2009 at 12:18 pm

One of the depressing signs of lack of basic science knowledge: Packaging on "organic" (and I'll leave out the whole argument about what the hell THAT is supposed to mean) fruit juice that says in prominent lettering "Chemical Free!!".

No chemicals?

Really?

Not even a little dihydrogen monoxide? Granted, while dihydrogen monoxide can be fatal if you breath enough of it into your lungs, is the primary component of acid rain, and our sewage treatment systems dump tons of it into our rivers every day, I don't mind having some in my drink.

If science education was treated with the same respect as, say, literature, then putting the prominent label saying "chemical free" on your product would not help sell it. It would make people call you a moron.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

30. Comment #398486 by Jos Gibbons on July 21, 2009 at 1:37 pm

The video is available from www.vimeo.com/3531977 but,if you're not registered with Vimeo, the high-quality MP4 version they offer is unavailable. I'm settling for downloading an FLV from clipnabber.com. Does anyone know a way to do better quality-wise? If not, at least I've shared with you all a way to download this film.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

31. Comment #398572 by DalaiDrivel on July 21, 2009 at 6:37 pm

avatarjonjermey,

Scientific METHOD, however, can and should be applied every day. Add in some logic and a selection of exposed fallacies, and you have a solid course in critical thinking which can and should be compulsory for all children before their thirteenth birthday.


This leads me to think that, perhaps, instead of science classes at all, we should have critical thinking classes with philosophical and scientific content.

It's just an idea.

As far as the history of science goes, does anyone think that History courses should actively cover science's development in the curriculum?

John Locke,

- but to a casual observer coffee is healthy one minute, unhealthy the next - so people dont trust science.


It also reinforces a fallacy that science is simply about what is relevant in people's everyday lives, and doesn't encourage them to expand their horizons.

It's very similar in my view to someone's sole experience of philosophy being religion, and religion hardly counts as (good) philosophy, does it?

As Richard would say, that's petty. Science is so much more a grander enterprise than that.

I might even suggest that winning the war with religion and superstition may come hand in hand with winning on the war on the public's perception of what is science.

Their fates could be intertwined.

That's a big issue to me- the reinforcement aspect of the media, projecting an image to the public that is then continually projected back, be it with fashion, politics, culture...

As I think it is with science. The media presents what the public wants concerning science, reinforcing that the public really doesn't want to know much concerning science, or what it really is.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

32. Comment #398631 by CaptainMandate on July 22, 2009 at 1:52 am

avatarre sulphites

the wine I used for research last night was actually labelled "organically produced tempranillo"

the ingredients included grapes which had an asterisk next to it and preservatives (sulphur dioxide produced from yeast)

The label stated it contained sulphites as part of the allergy advice but not as an ingredient

the reference to the grapes below stated "organically grown"

I guess this does give another reason why an understanding of science is important. for those of us who take an interest in what we're buying it helps to be able to avoid the sort of binary thinking that leads people to either think:

"it says organic, therefore it must be the best"

or

"you can't trust anything they say on labels"

the truth is, you can use labels as evidence and use reason to make an informed choice.

as it happens the choice was originally based on its sale price alone. We have since continued to buy even though it's gone up. organic or not it's very nice

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

33. Comment #398667 by John Locke on July 22, 2009 at 4:49 am

avatarCaptain:

i may indeed check out the wine

that said though as i expected they may be organically grown grapes - but those sulphites arent organic.

(p.s. sulphur dioxide is a "sulphite" so is in ingredients)

heres an interesting link on sulphites:

http://www.morethanorganic.com/sulphur-in-the-bottle

Other Comments by John Locke

34. Comment #398996 by CaptainMandate on July 23, 2009 at 3:15 am

avatarthanks for clearing that up (my old chem teacher would be dissapointed in me). although it did state the sulphur dioxide was produced by yeast. could that be organic£

that said the label was quite clear that the "organic" in the title referred only to the grapes.

anyway, organically produced tempranillo, available from Co-op and it's about £5 a bottle but sometimes less than £4. only scored 6 on a lovethatwine review but I like it

http://www.lovethatwine.co.uk/wine/Co-op-Organic-Tierra-Sana-Tempranillo_2840.html

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

35. Comment #399030 by Anaximander on July 23, 2009 at 4:33 am

*The media presents what the public wants concerning science, reinforcing that the public really doesn't want to know much concerning science, or what it really is.*

No, we just don't want to know about things we do not know.

Other Comments by Anaximander

36. Comment #400033 by DalaiDrivel on July 28, 2009 at 1:09 am

avatarAnaximander,

I think you've got it wrong.

We want answers to questions. We certainly want to know about things we don't know. How do you think religion sells itself? By dogmatic certainty.

I think that the we, as the scientifically illiterate, want to think what we like about things we do not know.

The problem is, we're wrong.

Science CAN inform us about things that we don't know. We only need realise that. It just can't provide all the answers right now.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: