Ignorance of economics is more relevant than ignorance of evolution
Promoted by Brendan
A recently released Gallup poll revealed that [gasp] people on the street are ignoring scientific evidence in favor of age-old beliefs and traditions. DailyKos's own thereisnospoon characterizes the level of belief in Biblical Creationism amongst the Republican electorate as "scary," and goes so far as to say that we "cannot allow" these people to determine our leadership based on their "willful ignorance" of current scientific consensus on the issue of evolution.
I found it hard to summon up much concern over the poll. What didn't destroy me yesterday ain't going to destroy me today. It would seem to me that if the success of a democratic republic depended on a scientifically oriented, non-superstitious citizenry, this Republic would never have survived for 200+ years. The fact is, education is spotty, learning is imperfect, people are on average...average, and biases are passed on from generation to generation like so much dinner china. And so it goes.
But I don't really want to get into yet another creation/evolution debate here. What's interesting to me is that there is a certain other area, not so much talked about in these circles, where the public also exhibits ignorance and/or disregard for the consensus of scholars and experts in the field. I am referring to economics: a field of study which inarguably has far more pertinence to effective government and the everyday bread-and-butter issues of society than evolution.
George Mason economics professor Bryan Caplan has a very convincing and well-written paper over at the Cato Institute entitled "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies"
, in which he explores how the public's views on fundamental economic issues diverge greatly from the consensus views of learned economists.
Caplan identifies four main types of bias that infect the public's understanding of economics:
Economic policy is the primary activity of the modern state. And if there is one thing that the public deeply misunderstands, it is economics. People do not grasp the "invisible hand" of the market, with its ability to harmonize private greed and the public interest. I call this anti-market bias. They underestimate the benefits of interaction with foreigners. I call this anti-foreign bias. They equate prosperity not with production, but with employment. I call this make-work bias. Finally, they are overly prone to think that economic conditions are bad and getting worse. I call this pessimistic bias.
If Caplan stopped here, I guess it would be pretty easy to dismiss these assertions of bias as just typical libertarian rambling-- I'm no apologist for Cato Institute libertarians when the stray from the facts, trust me . But Caplan offers convincing evidence of public bias on each of the four counts, particularly relying on a survey of 250 PhD economists and 1510 citizens done by Harvard University, the Washington Post, and the Kaiser Family Foundation.
NOTE: As you read the following examples, keep track of whether you agree more with the PhD economists or the general public.
Anti-market bias: When asked why the economy was not doing better than it was, survey respondents were asked: "Are business profits too high?" The general public tended to consider high business profits as a major factor in weaker economic performance, while economists tended strongly to answer that the higher business profits were no factor at all in weaker economic performance.
When asked "Which do you think is more responsible for the recent increase in gasoline prices-- oil companies trying to increase their profits or the normal law of supply and demand?" More than 70% of the public fingered the oil companies, while over 90% of economists thought that supply and demand was the bigger factor.
Anti-foreign bias: When survey respondents were asked to rate the economic damage caused by companies sending jobs overseas, the public tended to rate the damage as severe, while the economists rated the damage as minor. And when asked if "too many immigrants" were a factor in weakness in the economy-- again, the public saw the large number of immigrants as doing major damage to the economy, while a strong consensus among the economists concluded that the immigrants were doing no damage at all to the economy.
Make-work bias: When asked whether increased use of technology in the workplace was good for the economy, the economists were nearly unanimous that increased technology was beneficial to the economy. The general public, ostensibly worried about being put out of work by robots and computers, showed a good deal of ambivalence. And when asked about the economic damage caused by companies downsizing, the public tended to answer that major damage was caused to the economy by downsizing, while the economists saw minor damage or no damage at all. Says Caplan:
The popular stance rests on the illusion that employment, not production, is the measure of prosperity. In contrast, for economists and the enlightened public, downsizing proves the rule that private greed and the public interest point in the same direction. Downsizing superfluous workers leads them to search for more socially productive ways to apply their abilities. Imagine what would have happened if the farms of the 19th century never "downsized." Greed drove these changes, but they remained changes for the better.
Pessimistic bias: When asked: "Do you expect your children’s generation to enjoy a higher or lower standard of living than your generation, or do you think it will be about the same?"-- economists were much more likely than the public to predict a higher standard of living for the next generation.
The inevitable question arises: is the public biased, or are the economists biased? Aside from the fact that the economists have studied the economy more closely than the general public and have likely have a greater body of evidence to draw upon in forming their opinions, the study also found that the more educated a person is, the closer their opinions match the economists. This tends to support the thesis that it is the public, not economists, who are biased. And Caplan points out that the survey found that economists tend to be moderate Democrats, not conservative Republicans.
I urge you to read Caplan's entire piece... it's about 20 pages, but it is extremely clearly written, well-argued, and full of great quotes and info. Look out in particular for a really sharp debunking of the criticism of economists as "free market fundamentalists."
If the public indeed has a great deal of systematic error and bias in its assumptions and opinions about the economy, we can certainly expect that the public's preferred remedies to economic problems (real and imagined) will be flawed as well. Yet amongst some circles of populist thought, the will of the people is held up as pure, inviolate: the people want universal health care, damn the cost-- it will pay for itself over time, why? because it must. To my eye, we need to look back less than five years to Medicare Part D to see the results when you don't get to see the price tag on a policy up front.
In the bigger scheme of things, I think that we as Democrats need to consider closely the expert opinions of the economists in our discussion of issues that affect the economy-- often times, when the most informed experts contradict populist Democratic proposals, we give far too much weight to the opinions of the public as opposed to the experts on the economy when forming policy. When we want to form a policy regarding global warming, we wouldn't think of paneling a group of average Joes and Janes off the street and ask them how the weather's been; we listen to the experts, as we should. It should be the same when considering matters with consequence to the economy-- including healthcare, immigration, trade, and on down the line. Populism has its place in determining which issues should receive attention, but it is an overrated dynamic when formulating policy. We need politicians that will listen to expert opinion even when it flies in the face of popular opinion. One needs to go no farther than the abortive effort at immigration reform in the Senate this past week to see about 90 politicians who were far too sensitive to the whims of the voters to get a sensible law passed.
Democrats should heed the voters, always-- but listen to the experts consistently on all issues. Whether a politician believes in creation or evolution is way down at the bottom of my radar screen-- heck, some of these pols seem to think the world wasn't created fully until the doctor slapped their own screaming behind in the delivery room. Doesn't matter much to me, as long as they listen to the experts on the issues that really matter and use their knowledge to create good sound policy.
- skymutt's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Excellent dairy!
Well done!
I was pondering about the different tacks to 'it's the economy stupid' this morning, as I sipped my coffee. (What if GoRight ran our economy..... shudder, :)
My biggest problem is I cynically don't trust the 'experts'.
As we have seen in the global warming debate, some experts say this and some experts say that. Both being completely contradictory interpretations of the same facts. So I come at experts opinions with a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to trusting their facts. Statistics is a game that can be twisted and the 'methodolgies' can always be questioned.
My second problem is economists tend to view things from a whole different perspective than the populace, and that point of view is the problem. As in are they are sponsored by drugs companies, or oil exectuvies, or hedge funders. They focus on the 'big' picture economics, of nations and not the people who can be so dramatically affected by the numbers that economists like to play with. I would like to see a stronger focus on the micro-or small business sector, vs the macro, the huge bubble of money that floats around the world that gets picked at by hedge funders, and mergers.
I whole heartedly agree that progressives should focus on a practical economic model that can translate into a core ideology for a wholesome new way of doing business, that supports local economies and is a part of the global picture as well.
I openly admit to a strong bias against free market fundamentalists, who in my view have been changing the way our country does business by privatizing everything because the market does it best. 'They' want to privatize the post office, our public schools, parks, government programs like FEMA, everything. I don't see it as working. The system is being underfunded and choked with beauracracy.
The VA, or CSAP tests are perfect examples ''measuring' everything to death, and then studying the numbers, while the people get left behind. The VA as 7,000 different categories for disability (a paperwork nightmare) when they could have a simple four. Meanwhile they are behind the 'processing of claims' by about 400,000, understaffed and underfunded. What kind of business model is that? Putting numbers before people.
There is a simple principle that you can apply, put people before profits. People are always a companies most valuable resource. The policies I see being put forth put profits before people, and value stock value over all else.
And I also see over-regulation for 'your own good' as being a nightmare of pettiness that can often forego common sense.
I hope lots of folks chime on this topic we we can all learn more.
Thanks skymutt.
I'm only half stupid
Cynicism
I'd have to say that anyone who recognizes that their lack of trust in experts is partially due to their own cynicism really doesn't have much of a problem. In effect, you are essentially admitting that the experts are probably right more often than you are willing to allow, but though experience you know that the so-called experts are not infallible, and since you can't at all times be sure exactly where the experts are off-base, you mistrust expert opinions that contradict your own experiences and assumptions. Perfectly natural, IMO. The difference between yourself and some people is that you seem to be willing to challenge your own assumptions as well as expert opinion. The anti-intellectuals will constantly challenge expert opinion but will never look in the mirror at their own biases.
I'd never suggest that economists don't tend to study the areas of the economy where there are large sums of money involved. Of course this happens-- but it's not like this effect is unique to economists-- geologists, as a group, tend to concentrate their studies on the rocks where the petroleum hangs out, while other worthy rocks are neglected. More medical researchers try to find a cure for cancer than a cure for ALS because more people get cancer and there's far more money in a cure for cancer than a cure for ALS. Economists, of all people, would tell you that the lure of profits motivates people. I bet if you dug deep into the economic literature, however, you'd find that many economists are doing work in diverse areas of the economy, and not only doing the bidding of the big boys and the big money, much as there are geologists who study every corner of the earth and not just the portions of the earth that can be exploited for economic value.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Wrong on so many levels
The scientific illiteracy of the population *is* destroying you, it's just moving too slowly for you to notice. It's destroying you by denying you life saving medicine through embryonic stem cell bans. It's destroying you by allowing environmental degradation to continue apace. It's destroying you by investing badly needed resources in boondogles like ballistic missile defense or actively harmful technologies like nuclear power plants.
Don't kid yourself that the idiocy of a great many americans isn't a direct threat to your future.
Just. So. Wrong.
If there is any field where the "experts" and "scholars" in the field should be ignored it is most certainly economics. Why? Because economics is on par with astrology in terms of it's capacity to make accurate predictions, which is the only meaningful measure of a field of human knowledge.
Seriously, it used to be a common joke that economists were as bad as the weathermen at predicting the future but the meteorologists got better.
If you get ten economists together can they correctly tell you what will happen to the stockmarket tomorrow much less ten years from now? No. In fact if you get ten economists together you won't even get a majority answer much less a consensus answer.
There's a reason for that. They quite simply don't know what the hell they are talking about. In physics we can answer important questions frequently to a dozen or more significant digits. Economists are lucky if they answer a 50-50 question right,because their "science" is merely a collection of folk tales and myths devoid of any intellectual rigor.
You seriously want to listen to these people?
An advanced degree in economics almost qualifies a person to flip burgers.
And the economists are clearly wrong. Business profits come at the expense of two main groups: their customers and their employees. Those groups would by and large spend the money they make leading to additional transactions and a strengthening of the economy. Meanwhile businesses are more likely to make investments in infrastructure, offshore investments, and long term investments like bonds that do little to help the national economy and may actually harm it.
Strike 1 for the economists.
Strike 2 for the economists. Since oil companies have been having record profits it's obvious (to anyone who isn't an economist) that the oil companies have been raising prices in excess of their actual costs going up. They have capitalized on the smoke screen of rising costs hoping to fool people into thinking that's what has gas so costly. Only one group seems to have fallen for it.
Downsizing doesn't hurt the economy? You have to be kidding me. Having scores of unemployed people doesn't hurt the economy? Losing actual production capability in order to boost stock price is a winning scenario?
Only an economist could be that blind. In the real world the economy doesn't benefit by having people not working. Businesses may benefit, but that's not the same thing.
This guy you quote is an idiot, and I don't use that term lightly. Has he ever worked in the real world? Has he ever gone through a round of downsizing? My company just layed off about 10,000 people in the last two years. 1,000 were managers. The other 9,000 were not superfluous and the process of doing it has lead to a lot of hardship in trying to actually get the job done. There was absolutely no good reason to make the layoffs except that the stock was down and you can raise stock prices by firing people, no matter how much doing so undercuts the company's actual competitiveness.
Strike 3.
But they don't. Look at economic's "greater body of evidence." It's a terrible mish mash of conflicting terminology. They can't even agree on which basic measures are appropriate to answer a given question, and with out that critical first step there is no way to collect meaningful data and establish any kind of consensus about what it means.
Or we could look at at the dozen or so industrialized nations that have well functioning universal health care. France for instance. We could do a simple bit of math and ask how many states there are with well functioning public systems (answer: many) vs how many states there are with well functioning private systems (answer: none). Many is greater than none, even if you majored in economics.
The other side already has the faith based policy thing covered, no reason to make the dems do it too.
No. I cannot emphasize this enough: there are experts when it comes to physical sciences becasue the physical sciences are well developed regimes of knowledge. There is not one living expert today on economics. Why? Because our knowledge of the field is beyond infantile. It hasn't even been concieved yet. Our current economists are nothing more than con men and fools who mistake mummery for meaning and think themselves wise. There is no reason on earth to give them any credence or special treatment until they prove their theories can make predictions better than random guesses. As we can see above they have a long way to go.
You have to learn the difference between the physical sciences and the social "sciences." The former are mature fields of study that make huge contributions to our understanding of the world. The latter are immature fields that are still mostly charlatanism and fakery because they have not yet found a solid bedrock on which to anchor their studies.
When was the last time you heard of a revolution in physics? Never really. Quantum was a huge deal but it's all marginal. It doesn't change our understanding of physics beyond the incredibly tiny scale one iota. That's because physics is basically right. It's solidyly founded. Similarly the chances that we're going to suddenly discover that DNA is wrong, or the periodic table of elements is wrong is virtually nil. Those things are well established. They are essentially facts.
Every few years there are revolutions in psychology, sociology, political science, economics, and so on. Why? Because these fields are at sea. They have established exactly nothing, settled nothing. They flail about with competing theories based upon personal preference and politics. And I'm talking not about fringe esoteric matters but the very central arguments of their fields.
Example- economists are still divided on the question of "supply side economics." Why? There is no good reason that economists should not have settled the question decisively in the THREE DECADES that the matter has been highly visible in public policy circles. And yet they can't. That they fail even to answer such a root critical question to the understanding of national economics is direct proof that their field of study is, as yet, without rigorous basis.
Maybe some day there will be real "economic scientists." That day is still a long way off. For the moment economics professors should have columns right next to the horoscope, and for the same purpose.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Attempting to pick some points of discussion out of this rant...
Not going to say that a better informed public would be of great benefit to us all, but answer me this: at what point in history has the American public been better informed? Yet we have not destroyed ouselves or our society yet.
Great comparison. There are a lot of similarities between meteorologists and economists. People who mistrust meteorologists make a lot of the same charges about meteorologists that people who mistrust economists make about economists. Lots of global warming skeptics make a big deal about how the experts were so far off on the high side in predicting the number and severity of hurricanes during last year's season. And there's no disputing that the experts were way off in their predictions last year. The difference between you and me apparently is that I don't have the audacity to call those meteorologists 'idiots'. They may have been wrong in their predictions, but they still know a hell of a lot more about the weather and climate than I do.
The (incorrect) assumptions here being that while layoffs occur at one company, jobs could not be possibly be being created in equal or greater numbers at other companies; and that companies require the same amount of human labor over time to maintain constant production, even as technology advances.
LOL at the implication that all managers are superfluous, while all "peons" are productive. You truly do live in a black-and-white world of your own imagination apparently.
Please try to separate the concept that downsizing in general is particularly damaging to the economy as opposed to the idea that ompanies always downsize in perfectly rational ways. Some economists might argue that if a company is so dumb as to lay off their most productive workers, the economy in general is better off to free up this labor to work at smarter companies.
France also has 9% unemployment, while our unemployment is less than 5%. Economists might make a connection between France's higher tax rates to pay for universal health care and the higher unemployment rate, while you tend to look at things like universal health care in a vacuum.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I think you make a mistake
when you trivialize laying of 10,000 workers, and deny Tliaoc's first hand knowledge of what has happened at his company.
There is a business model out there that puts profits over people that inflates the stock value at the cost of the quality of the services provided.
You can't treat people like numbers and turn around and expect them to loyal little lock step employees that help a CEO get a bigger severance package at the exepense of treating good employees as if they are meaningless pesky costs at the bottom of a profit spreadsheet.
I'm only half stupid
Look
I don't deny that layoffs are tough on people. I've been laid off myself once. "Blindsided" is the word that comes to mind. Caught me totally off guard.
I don't trust tlaloc to give an objective account of the layoffs at his company when he starts out with the ridiculously biased blanket statement that managers are superfluous while rank-and-file workers are productive. This kind of appeal to the proletariat might work on Martin da Yoica, but it falls real flat with me. Business requres both good managers and good line workers. To essentially state that management has no role in production kind of damages a person's credibility across the board.
I feel I have a record of criticizing business when I feel that businesses engage in practices that are cruel or unnecessarily harmful to their own workers. I have my limits in terms of what i think constitutes fair compensation for corporate execs. The difference between tlaloc and me is that I try to see things from both sides-- from the perspective of business and from the perspective of the worker. Tlaloc only is looking at things from the worker's perspective.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
That me be true
But the workers perspective has taken quit a stab in the back in our most recent history....... so I think it helps to balance things out even if you think his view is a little over the top.
It is much harder for the voice of the worker to be heard these days. We are being assualted on all sides..... illegal immigrants take our jobs, visa immigrants take our jobs, and our jobs are being shipped overseas, as seemingly we stand by helpless as 'the experts' tell us what is good for us only we are just too stupid to understand.
I'm only half stupid
A punic victory
I may have one the argument but the proof harms us all.
You should try reading what I say as oppossed to thinking what I might say based on some 1950 preconception of someone elses words. It is not the management but the ownership which I am oppossed to.
Well, it's been a while. How's the American economy? Recessions and job cuts yet? Who'd a thunk it. Oh wait... me. Remeber the good old days? When you could trade pieces of paper with less developed countries and steal the local populaces resources, print more paper and steal more. When the slice of capital apportioned to you by your masters would pay for food, housing AND medicine.
"its this business that screws the economy", "it was that law passed which screwed the economy", blah blah blah. Wake up and smell the coffee (if you can afford the coffee or the time to sleep),
ECONOMICS IS SCREWING YOU
Ironic how communism was thought of as turning mankind into a souless machine uncapable of critical thought. Where "individualism will be lost" in favour of "the collective". Take a long hard look at your world as it shapes the common man into a tool of the capitalist system.
I just want to say how cool I think it is
to have such strikingly different perspectives meeting here and arguing about politics, economics, foreign policy, etc. Without taking sides in this discussion I think every viewpoint adds to the total conversation.
That's all, I'll get out of the way now, carry on =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Meh.
Managers in large corporations are very likely to be stakeholders in the company thru stock or stock options. This kind of compensation, often reinforced with performance bonuses, really blur the distinction between manager and owner in the modern corporation. Executive level management is almost always compensated with ownership stakes. So I don't see much of a point here.
Me too, brother! But I'm not ready to trade in capitalism for communism just because of a recession, even a severe recession. This is a head cold for the economy, maybe the flu. It is not likely to be fatal for our capitalist system. We've had recessions before and have come back-- many times.
I dunno about you, but if I ever started feeling like I had "masters" or was a "tool of the capitalist system", I'd quit my job and do something else. I actually did that once when I had a tedious corporate job that I didn't like. It can be done.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Managers in large corporations
I'm not sure what you mean here. Since my oppossition is ownership in general, what does it matter if 1 person owns the world or 20? The land and the majority of people will still be controlled by the few.
Of course not, the people in power seek to perpetuate thier system, not destroy it. It's only when the people want to end capitalism that it will end. Recessions, depressions, poverty, massive wealth inequality and the rest are reasons to change, its the people who do the changing.
But what was this something else? Unless it was absolute self sufficientcy I guess it was still within the confines of the capitalist system, money exchange, profit, capital ect. Your master is the money, but who is the master of money? I call us "tools of the system" in the way we unconsciously maintain and perpetuate it.
Also
"France also has 9% unemployment, while our unemployment is less than 5%. Economists might make a connection between France's higher tax rates to pay for universal health care and the higher unemployment rate, while you tend to look at things like universal health care in a vacuum."
Are the people in France marching in the streets against universal health care? And linking unemployment and health care might be disengenious, as it is a very easy game to play statistics to mean whatever you want them to mean.
Where are the mobs of folks in Canada protesting against their health care system?
You pay for people without health care either in higher taxes or higher health care premiums, whether you want to admit it or not. That is the gist of Arnolds argument for changing the health care system in California.
The biggest harm to health care in this country comes from insurance companies.
I'm only half stupid
Are the people in France
The French may not be marching in the streets against Universal Health Care, but they are indeed marching in the streets regarding their unemployment rate. As far as the link between a higher tax burden to support expanded entitlements and higher unemployment-- I will only say that I'm not an economist and I can't say for sure that there's a solid cause-and-effect relationship there, but it certainly seems that there could be a link. And I'm not at all offended when an economist studies the situation and concludes that there could be a link there, because if a proposed solution to our health care situation was destined to cause higher unemployment, wouldn't we want to be warned of that in advance?
BTW, I had to comment several times in my diary on DailyKos to clarify that I am not fundamentally against the idea of Universal Health Care. I simply am reserving judgement for the time being until I see the full debate on any plan that is put forth, including the expert opinion of economists. Like you, I'm cynical... we were burned by Medicare Part D and we'll be paying not billions but trillions over the long haul for that poorly concieved program. Its the nature of these big-ticket entitlements that once they're in place, there's no going back, so you better measure twice before you cut once.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Medicare Part D
was written by the free market God's who are true believers that unregulated markets are THE answer to all problems in the world, literally.
The free market God's are the ones that literally thought that supply side economics would form a more perfect government in Iraq.
It has been a miserable failure yet they still insist that the ideology of free markets creates conditions for fantastic government. It just does NOT work.
There MUST be some balance between; driven by the pure profit motive and serving societies greater good.
I'm only half stupid
Not true
It's just the opposite of what you say. The libertarian 'free market' economists like Bruce Bartlett hate Medicare Part D with a passion, as you would expect them to hate any new big government entitlement. It is an area where I am in strong alliance with the free market crowd.
No, by and large, Medicare Part D is another atrocity foisted upon us by the Neocons. I can only guess at their motive. Perhaps it was a simple pander to get senior votes. The neocons are such ideological whores that it is hard to apply logic to some of the decision-making processes.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Tell Bruce
to find another name for his philosophy. That free markets is associated with the neoconservative ideology gives it a bad name.
Medicare D is the free market privatization plan at work. The motive is destroying everything FDR, whom they despise with a passion, ever stood for.
I'm only half stupid
Sing it Sister
and hallelujah!
\
I'm still coming to grips with the dunderheads who thought there could be a program that gets drugs to a mass amount of people who didn't have them that wouldn't increase profits of the companies supplying said drugs.
responses
True but you have to keep in mind that our capacity to destroy ourselves is advancing very fast. Nuclear weapons didn't exist before 60 years ago. The first bombs were powerful but not a global threat. Now we have an arsenal that can render the surface of the earth lifeless. Our industrial capacity has grown incredibly so that if we wished to we could easily deforest the remaining US forests in short order. As this capacity for self destruction increases we need to make sure our understanding of the world tries to keep pace.
The meteorologists *also* make a lot of correct predictions. Can you honestly say the same for economists as a whole? I see no evidence of such. If the Meteorologists made tons of errors, had no consensus position, and were right less of the time than random guessing would indicate then they should be ridiculed and ignored. That isn't the case for meteorologists, though.
Why on earth would you assume greater job creation than job destruction? That's the kind of thing a skeptical person like me would like to see proven. Can you prove that layoffs in one area somehow cause job creation in others, and furthermore that they do in amounts equal to or excess of the jobs destroyed? Cause if not your argument falls apart.
We *know* jobs are destroyed. You want to *hope* jobs are created. Hope is not an adequate basis for a field of study.
It's true that such a dichotomy is not accurate. However I didn't really make such a statement. And it is literally true that managers produce no value, they at best facilitate the "peons" to create value through their work. In one sense then, managers are superfluous, as in you could have a company with no managers and while it may not produce a good product it would still produce something. A company with no workers cannot function, except as a parasitic organization of other companies that do have workers.
Except you were trying to prove to me that downsizing was helpful. We already know why it hurts- people suddenly lose employment. You are taking the position that there is some hidden benefit that out weighs the obvious negative.
The burden of proof is on you. The first explanation offered by the person you quote doesn't hold up because we know for a fact that companies do not *always* get rid of superfluous employees. So now you'd have to show that the harm of people losing their jobs and the harm caused by companies slitting their own throats is outweighed by the benefit of some subset of downsizing companies trimming off fat.
Honestly I don't think that's a proposition you can come close to proving.
Our unemployment is not 5%. It's closer to 10% actually. The problem is that economists in this country have taken to giving "unemployment" a very peculiar definition that makes it seem smaller than it is. For instance they discount people who are not employed but who have given up all hope of find a job and have ceased looking. Those people are still unemployed to everyone except the economists.
See what I mean about the ridiculousness of a field that can't even settle on root definitions? It's as if physicists across the country had different definitions of momentum and each insisted their way was the right way.
http://www.autodogmatic.com/index.php/sst/2007/01/06/p419
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why on earth would you
I don't "assume" greater job creation than job destruction. It's not "hope" on my part; it is a fact. The BLS publishes net job creation statistics every week. One of the main complaints about the current recovery is that job creation is not as robust as in previous recoveries-- somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million jobs per year over the past 4 years or so. But that's still approximately 8 million more jobs now than there were 4 years ago in this country. That's despite the fact that layoffs occur all the time.
Okay, let's use a sports analogy. Joe Montana and Steve Young were highly skilled quarterbacks who both were on the roster of the San Fransisco 49ers for a time in the late 80s and early 90's. Only one could play quarterback for the team at one time. Montana was let go by the 49ers and was signed by the Chiefs. Both went on to have productive years simultaneously, and thus offensive production in the league was increased by the "layoff" of Montana by the 49ers.
If a company X feels that it does not need certain employees, isn't it likely that in most cases that labor is actually more needed in other jobs in the economy, regardless of whether tcompany X is making a perfect decision in its layoffs? If your wife hates you and wants a divorce, isn't it possible that you may be happier in some other relationship with another woman, even if your wife doesn't have valid reasons for hating you? Yet divorce is an "obvious negative..."
One of your better points. It is true that it is hard to make direct comparisons between unemployment rates in different countries. Anecdotally, I will remind you, however, of the riots in France from the disaffected, unemployed youth, and assert that we haven't had those sorts of riots here, perhaps because people can find jobs. And I really don't think that it's fair to lay the politics involved in formulating official definitions of unemployment at the feet of economists, when politicians have the interest in jobbing the numbers while economists have more of an interest in the availibility of good, consistent data.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I don't "assume" greater job
two notes:
1) given what I've already shown about the lack of consistent or intelligent measures why should we trust BLS data, especially as it comes from the government and is therefor biased towards giving a rosy outlook? As i recall the BLS data is garnered from surveys of various businesses, what reason do we have to believe these unvetted replies are remotely accurate?
2) Even if we accept the data as accurate it makes no distinction between a part time job at dennys and an executive vice presidency at IBM. They are equal in this measure, and yet surely you'd agree that a laid off EVP (as if) who subsequently served burgers would not be an economic plus.
No, I don't see that as being supported by the facts at all. Companies all too often throw away employees because what they value is not in fact productivity but stock price. If they can raise the stock and all theyhave to do is cripple the company most execs will jump at it because they have no investment in the company actually doing well. They are invested in the bogus perception that it is doing well on wall street.
Furthermore when company X throws away those valuable employees there is no reason to think they will end up finding work in the short or even long term that is in their field and at a level commensurate or above where they were. Most likely they will work dead end jobs they are not particularly suited for until a similar position to what they did becomes available at which point they are low man on the totem pole.
Here's where the analogy you used breaks down: most employees are not Joe Montana. That is they aren't famous across the nation with another employer just salivating to offer them a similar position. They may be damn good employees but they're functionally anonymous.
Imagine if you were the greatest footbal QB of all time, only you didn;t play professionally. You get laid off from your job at a warehouse. Do you get scooped up by the Chiefs? Nope, not because you suck but just because they don't know you.
I'm sure all the world famous layoff-ees like Joe Montana come out just fine. But there aren't enough of them for me to really care, and certainly not enough for me to base policy on them.
France has a lot of social problems. And Americans frankly are used to being taken advantage of as far as work.
You think there aren't politicians who try to play fast and loose with defined terms of physics, chemistry , and biology? There are, I promise you. But they have a hard time because those fields have a robust and widespread universal set of definitions. Every chemist in the world can tell you what a salt is. There's no contention about the matter. The same is not true of econmists and their measures.
You can think of a given field of knowledge as a language. The mutually agreed terms then are the alphabet of that language. With this analogy it is clear that economists are merely speaking gibberish at each other. They can't communicate meaningfully, and until they do their field is going no where.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
responses
I don't know... What reason do we have not to believe the data is not as advertised? Certainly if the data were rigged, a whistleblower might step have stepped forward at some point... do you have a link along those lines?
The unemployment rate is a little different than raw numbers of jobs-- the definition of unemployment has been adjusted a couple times in the past few decades in order to lower the rate by a few ticks. But it's harder to rig a raw number. Part-time jobs are included in the job stats but AFAIK thats the way it's been for many years.
Funny how you diss management as superfluous until you can use them to make a point... If executives were truly superfluous, their compensation merely sucks up the revenues of the company, money that rightfully should be distributed amongst the productive workers. The non-productive exec gets laid off and goes to work at Dennys, where he/she is at least productive and adds value to the overall economy. This would be a net plus for the economy.
Perception only goes so far. Public companies must submit detailed quarterly and annual reports under federal securities law. Fraud is always a possibility, but there have been some high profile top-level execs who have been sent to prison (finally) for fraud, and that's been a positive I think. The market generally only likes big job cuts where it sees a plan for recovery. Big money investors are surprisingly interested in indications of strong long-term performance when they have millions invested in a company's stock.
Most o the time when employees are laid off, it's because the company can't figure out how to make a profit with those employees. That implies that those employees have not been very productive, and I don't say that as a negative about the skills of those employees at all, because the problem is often bad management or market factors beyond the control of the company. Usually when a company hires, they have a plan for how to profit from the additional labor. So when you get laid off and then get hired on elsewhere as low man on the totem pole, you may very well be more productive at your new job than the old job, even if you are earning much less.
It's pretty clear that you are biased against fields where there is imperfect information. It's very unfair to compare economics to physics in these terms. Physicists often conduct experiments in very controlled environments where most of the variables are known. It's neither good nor bad; it's the nature of the discipline. Economics often attempts to model extremely complex real world situations where it's impossible to list all the possible variables. This is also neither good nor bad; it is the nature of the discipline.
Your assertion that economists can't communicate meaningfully is pretty thin, given that you provide not a shred of evidence for it and you've already made clear your contempt for economists.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
biases
That's not the way it works, Skymutt. You can't just assume the data is okay you have to be able to show that it is. There are any number of plausible reasons why such surveys might be falsified, it is up to the people using the data to show that they weren't.
True, but since you seem to find management valuable I thought you'd agree with the example.
In the stock market perception is everything. It is the only thing. Granted that perception may be influenced by real world considerations but more often it is not.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
That's not the way it works,
It's perfectly legitimate for me to assume that the data is reasonably accurate. The census is done with surveys along these lines, and while we know that people are missed in the census, I have no reason to believe that the census for my city was not accurate to within a few thousand people.
There are thousands of these surveys each month and I don't have them. I can't show that they aren't falsified, but I can't think of any good reason why a business would lie on such a survey. There's certainly no reason for massive numbers of businesses to lie on the surveys.
If you want to pick apart the BLS's methodology, it's on their site.
Day to day, week to week, month to month, perceptions move a stock price, as the market makes it's best guess as to how a company will perform based on imperfect information. Perception is only one factor not related to performance that can move a stock in the short term. For example, sometimes a big institutional investor will need to adjut its portfolio and will relentlessly sell a stock for weeks, driving the price down. Other times, short sellers of a stock will panic and a stock can rise sharply for days as the shorts cover their positions. Over the long term though, perfomance trumps perception for most stocks. There are certain stocks that are trading vehicles which can move over the medium term on a lot of factors other than the performance of the company. But these stocks are in the minority.
The stock market, as another very complex system with many unknown variables at play, will naturally baffle someone who wants every phenomena in the world to operate as consistently as things do in physics.
Name me one company, just one, that has a stock price that has not been influenced by performance over the long haul. I have invited you to divulge your employer before, so that we can diagnose the poor performance of the stock. I used to trade semiconductor stocks, so I know just enough about the industry to be dangerous :-)
Poor analogy. Economics will always be the study of economies. It will never be anything different. Economies already exist in the present day and economists are studying them.
Alchemists, on the other hand, had no knowledge of atoms and could not study atoms and the atomic nature of matter, while atoms and their interactions are the entire basis of chemistry.
If you insist on comparing a social science to the physical sciences and expect exact parallels everywhere, you will endlessly frustrate yourself. Economists will never be able to conduct experiments iunder carefully controlled conditions as their conterparts in the physics department do. It is not a matter of the field "coming together" at some point in the future.
Hogwash, but I'll bite-- find me a link to just one example of such a debate between economists, so that we can dissect it.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Examples
And why does the price subsequently go down? Because there is a perception that the stock must be weaker if people are unloading it.
Let's take an example that will maybe lay this idea to rest.
Intel stock is at $22.36
AMD stock is at $13.80
There is simply no comparison perfomance wise though. In the PC market (AMD's best market by far) Intel has about an 80% share of the market whereas AMD is looking at 10%. In the Server market AMD is a bit player. In the mobile market (cell phones and such) I don't believe they are doing all that well either.
In the first quarter of 07 AMD lost money ($600 million of it). Intel made $1.6 billion profit. In fact AMD's net worth is about what Intel spends on R&D every year.
There is simply no comparison between the two in terms of performance and yet AMD's stock is valued at a substantial percentage of what Intel's stock goes for.
Why?
Because perfomance has nothing to do with it. Were stock price really performance based you should see at least a 100x difference between the two.
Done.
Based on what I've said you can figure out who I work for pretty easily, but I like to maintain a small amount of plausible deniability as far as work vs net.
No it's a perfect analogy. The alchemists *were* studying atoms they just didn't know it yet. They slowly built up their knowledge of superficial, and often false, relationships until bit by bit they worked down to a more fundamental understanding that became chemistry.
Similarly economists today make crude and often false attempts to divine the relationships brought about by the fundamental rules of economics, of which economists are mostly ignorant. At some point their field will undergo a transformation and become really useful, and when it does most likely it will look nothing at all like what we think of as economics. And it is quite likely that those future economists will take on some different name to distinguish their field of knowledge from the mess that came before. Just like Alchemists becoming chemists, and astrologers becoming astronomers.
If they want to be called and treated as scientiists then they have to be able to do science. If they cannot that's fine but I suggest they stop adopting the trappings if they can't fill the role.
Alright, let's see.
Here's an example of two economists debating the outlook for 2005:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/econoblog12302004.htm
The first economist says that
What is the second economists first statement?
They can't agree on what constitutes a post recession recovery because one of them defines it by job growth and the other by GDP growth. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
The first economist replies:
They are merely talking past each other on this issue because they don't have a fundamental agreement on what a post-recession recovery means.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
And why does the price
More accurately, if there are more sellers than buyers at a given time and price, the price will go down.
Sure, there is a panic selling effect when a stock falls sharply. There is also panic buying when a stock rises sharply. These are all short term phenomena causing short-term fluctuations in price. Over the long haul, performance and prospects are what matter.
Good-- I used to trade AMD and Intel, so I know something about their stocks.
First of all you exhibit a fundamental ignorance of the stock market right off the bat-- the ratio of the share price of the two stocks is totally insufficient to measure the market value of the two companies. Intel has 5.8 billion shares outstanding @ $22, while AMD has only a little over 500 million shares outstanding @ $14. Intel's market capitalization, the value that the market has put on the compnay, is 5.8 billion x $22 = $130 billion, while AMD's market cap is 500 million x $14 = around $7 billion. So Intel is worth nearly 20 times what AMD is, or, in other terms, AMD is only worth about 5% of the mighty Intel. So you see, when you understand the stock market, you see that AMD's stock is not valued at a "substantial percentage" of Intel's stock.
AMD's gains on Intel over time in stock price in the past 6 or 7 years have to do with the fact that AMD has gained market share on Intel over that period AND the fact that AMD has become more competitive with intel in higher margin, more expensive chips. In the late 90's, AMD's chips were only included in extremely low end machines. They didn't have a server chip at all. The didn't have a processor for mobile computers. They had a reputation for cheap, shoddy chips. Now, several years later, their products are competitive with Intel, and not just at the low end of the market. Their chips are powerful, and at various times, they have had chips that rivalled intel's best performing chips. They arguably beat intel to market with a viable 64 bit server chip. They have chips for mobile computers. At various times, gamers and other power users have preferred AMD's chips to intel-- this would have been an incomprehensible scenario back in the days of AMD's K5 and k6, which they could barely give away most of the time.
This is why their stock has gained on Intel's-- they have gained on Intel as a company over a period of time. It is related to PERFORMANCE.
As far as quarterly earnings, anyone who trades semiconductor stocks knows that earnings are 1) highly cyclical and 2) are subject to wild fluctuations quarter to quarter due to many factors within the industry. I don't keep up with AMD and Intel quarter to quarter like I used to, but I can say there, also, AMD's earnings and sales, over time, have gained on Intel when looking at the long haul. Investors also look beyond present sales and profits and see that AMD has gained on Intel technologically and has emerged as a viable competitor technologicaly to Intel, which could lead to greater market share and earnings in the future-- in a market where Intel still dominates in market share, it has more to lose, while AMD has little to lose and much to gain.
Based on this, a valuation of AMD that represents only 5% of the valuation of Intel might seem meager to some. When I traded the stocks, I sure considered AMD to be low (it was probably valued at about 2%-3% of intel at the time)-- my general trade was to buy AMD and sell (short) Intel, and the trade did very well for me, with exceptions (9-11 burnt me bad). Sorry to have sold your company short, but I did it many times from 2000-2002, because I felt it was overvalued with respect to AMD.
Not at all. Reread the discussion. There is no disagreement overthe technical definition of recovery. All economists would define expanding GDP growth as "recovery;" the debate is over how signifiant/strong the recovery was. They are using the same terms. Whether they are talking past each other (i.e. not being responsive to each other's points) is really beside the point-- that's simply a function of their failure to listen to each other in that particular exchange or their eagerness to get their own points across. That could happen in a discussion in any discussion amongst scientists and does not indicate any failure of the discipline under discussion.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Not so.
First off you are changing the terms of the discussion. I never said anything about the total market capitalization, I spoke specifically to stock price. And with good reason. Companies do NOT fire workers to rais their market capitalization because that number has no real affect on the people doing the firing. They do it to raise the stock price which does have a direct monetary affect on the execs. You arbitrarily chose to skip topics. Which I have to say is very typical for economists, as we saw before.
Second off your conclusion is still wrong. AMD having a capitalization of 5% DOES in fact make it a pretty significant percentage of Intel's given the situation of the two companies. In case I need to remind you Intel is making money and AMD is losing. Intel is many dozens of times larger than AMD in terms of net worth. Intel has eight times the market share of AMD in AMD's best market and Intel competes in markets that AMD doesn't. A 20x difference is rather ludicrously small given all that.
All of that is true and none of it comes close to explaining the discrepency. it is a rationalization. An attempt to play off decisions made completely arbitrarily as if they had some rational meaning when they quite clearly don't.
If AMD made a chip tomorrow that was the best chip ever made and far superior to anything Intel had in the pipe much less on the market what would happen? Would AMD stock suddenly double intel's? No. Why not? Because perfomance has NOTHING to do with the matter. I'm not sure how many ways you want me to prove this to you before you accept it, but it is fact. The stock market has only the vaguest connection with reality at all and none whatsoever to any objective measure of performance.
AMD has risen, because they have become percieved as a hot company. And even in the face of momentus set backs in the last few years that perception of being hot has seen them through so that their stock is still quite high.
I'm sure it may have worked well for you but you have to understand that it was based on nothing rational. A total market capitalization of AMD at 1% of Intel is probably way too high. 2-3% is ridiculous and 5% is astronomical. Again there is simply no comparison between the two in terms of what they are able to do (i.e. performance).
That was my point- they cannot agree on what is the right measure to determine how successful a recovery is because they have no common definition of what that means.
No they don't disagree (that they said) on what a recovery is, that's besides the point. They cannot measure the recovery due to ta total lack of common definition of the issue.
It is the reason they talk past each other that is key, and no that does NOT happen in discussions between competent physical scientists.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
First off you are changing
Market Cap (for all intents and purposes) linearly varies with stock price. Stock price goes up 10% ==> market cap goes up 10%. So I don't understand your point. To discuss the market value of the companies, it was essential for me to bring up their market caps. Stock price is a meaningless metric when comparing the relative total market value of two companies.
You're looking at one quarter. AMD has made money in past years. In 2000, I'm quite sure that it earned more per share than Intel. But earnings quarter to quarter in the smaller semiconductor companies swing wildly, which I explained before, partly because the new fabs are so costly to smaller companies. Sales can tend to give a better idea of where a company is headed. In terms of sales, AMD is certainly bigger than 1/20th the size of Intel.
Again, the market considers that AMD is growing faster than Intel, which adds a growth premium to AMD's stock.
If you don't think AMD's stock price moves on every bit of news released regarding capabilities of planned chips, scraps of information about production difficulties, etc. etc. etc. you are crazy. Not saying that all traders have complete information, nor perfect understanding of the info that does come out. But they can't get enough of that stuff (technical info). And they will trade on it. And of course they trade on sales data, which tends to follow performance.
I don't know why you are trying to tell me otherwise, when as I mentioned before, I actively traded AMD and Intel for 2 years. I've bought and sold both stocks dozens of times. I participated in the trader message boards for both stocks. Traders will comb the earth for info about the companies they trade in.
You just pull these figures out of thin air, so I can't really comment.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Headway
BUT WE WEREN'T COMPARING THE TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF TWO COMPANIES. God, this is what drives me insane about economists. We were exclusively discussing stock price and then you go and pretend like all along we have been discussing market capitalization and try to just port over all of our statements to the entirely different topic.
We were talking about stock price, and you were claiming stock prices reflected performance. I've given you hard evidence that that isn't true. You even admit it when you say "Again, the market considers that AMD is growing faster than Intel, which adds a growth premium to AMD's stock." Well growth ISN'T performance, now is it? So if the stock is to some degree modulated by a *perception* of growth then the stock is not performance based. It can;t be because a non-performance issue is part of the equation (as are hundreds of other non-performance based perceptions).
If you want to claim that total market capitalization is a good measure of performance that's fine. I don't care enough about the topic to debat you but that quite simply is not what we were arguing!
Sure, but never as much as Intel has.
I doubt it. Again in their best market they have 1/8th of Intel's MSS. And Intel competes in several markets AMD doesn't.
Your ignoring my argument. I said if AMD outperformed intel in terms of making a vastly superior chip would their stock surge past Intel's? Of course it will move a bit, because there will be a perception of success, but the magnitude of the success and the magnitude of the perception will not be equal and since the stock is entirely preception based the stock movement will not equal the performance.
Here's a simple way to answer your assertion that stock prices are based on performance- were this true it would NEVER be the case that a company was under or over valued. The valuation of a companies stock would always be right because the price would be directly linked to performance. And yet you know this isn;t true and that copmpanies are constantly either better or worse than their stock price indicates.
How can that be unless stock price is set by the perception rather than by the fact?
Precisely. And what does it mean that they act on incomplete understandings of incomplete information? It means they act upon their perception of the situation rather than what the situation actually is.
That's what I've been saying all along and now you've just admitted it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
A suggestion
I think you should just accept the fact that there are no sciences that are as mathematically precise as physics. None. You will never ever find the same level of precision anywhere else.
That does not mean that all the other sciences have zero value. It just means they must deal with more variables and higher deviations than your own field. And as such, they will always appear sloppy to you. But that does not mean that the folks in those fields are ignorant of the inherent sloppiness; they are, and most try to adapt their computations to obtain the most accurate results possible.
Just a suggestion. You can take it or leave it.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I don't think that's true
Chemistry and biology have fields where they reach extreme levels of accuracy as well.
But there is a huge difference between being "not as precise" and lacking even the most basic elements of a coherent field of study. Geology is not as precise as physics, but you never run into a situation where two competent geologists can't agree on what the Mohorovičič discontinuity is. They know, because it is established. And because they know they can communicate meaningfully about it. The same is just not true for the "social sciences."
And I agree that does not mean they have "zero value." Indeed I think they absolutely have value. But what it does mean is that people who study these fields are not experts in any way shape or form. They are workers building towards some fundamental understanding, not sages in possession of one.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Experts
Experts are those who know the most about a subject, generally those who have invested a lot of time studying a subject. We have very incomplete knowledge of the universe, but I feel comfortable saying that Carl Sagan was an expert.
Here's a glossary of economic terms
, numbering roughly 1000 terms. Any two expert economists probably share familiarity with a significant subset of these terms, numbering in the hundreds, and can communicate meaningfully using those terms. I've heard economists engage in interesting discussion with other economists many many times.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
BUT WE WEREN'T COMPARING THE
When we were talking about the relative performance of the companies over time, it was sufficient to talk about stock price. Once you started talking about the relative total worth of AMD to Intel, stock price was no longer a relevant metric to shed light on the issue.
Which they do tend to, over time, in the long run. There mus have ben a half-dozen times in this thread that I've indicated that it is not a perfect correlation between performance and price, just a correlation...
It most certainly is a part of performance. If a company grows its revenue, that indicates that it is either selling more of its product, or selling its product at higher prices. How well a company is selling a product and how well they are able to exert pricing power in the market is certainly part of a company's performance. It's not the only measure of performance-- Performance involves many other factors, such as whether a company's R&D is creating a viable line of products for the future, whether the company is holding the line on costs, and so on...
Over the past several years, AMD's growth is a historical fact, not a perception. Its market share has grown at the expense of Intel over the course of the past several years. The total dollar amount of its sales has grown faster than Intel's sales.
Well, don't doubt it. The fact is, AMD's sales are about 15% of Intel's sales:
AMD's total sales in the last 12 months:$5.55 billion
Intel's total sales in the last 12 months:$35.29 billion
And perceptions have a tendency to have some relation to reality, though not a perfect relation-- much like stock prices have a relation to company performance, though not a perfect relation.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Economists can't be trusted
1) They get their dependent and independent axes backwards when they graph.
2) I lost all trust for them when as a Mathemetics major, I took 'Statistics' and the Economics majors took 'Statistics for Economics'. It was like their statistics weren't based on math. I never really trusted them after that.
you noticed that, too
At a university i attended, it seemed each department had its own statistics course, and it was often a part of the sophomore "decider" package, paired with another killer course. There was business statistics, educational statistics, statistics for engineers, a course from the psychology department, and so on. My favourite, and this is absolutely true, was a statistics course taught by and for the history department!
Exactly!
It was like they weren't up to the rigor of actually understanding the underlying math, but we should still believe that they are using it properly.
Couple things to point out...
1) When we're talking about PhD economists, I'll make a guess that they have had quite a bit of exposure to statistics and higher math by the time that they get that advanced degree.
2) It's easy to just assume that undergrad students take the easiest track. Not the case, though. My degree is in geography, but I took three quarters of honors calculus, a differential equations course, two graduate-level statistics courses, a linear algebra course, and the tougher physics 3 course sequence. And I took several computer programming courses as electives. The honors advisors encouraged you to take classes beyond the bare minimum, to say the least. It would be interesting to look at the coursework that economics PhDs actually took, rather than the minimum requirements for an undergraduate economics degree.
3) Please name an undergraduate degree for any science other than mathematics itself where students at a typical public university really are required to take enough mathematics to achieve a full understanding of the math underlying the science. At my school, my recollection is that a physics degree did not rquire any statistics course, and only required perhaps a 2 course calculus sequence and perhaps differential equations.
4) Math is tough! Part of the reason I took so much math is because I was considering becoming a math major-- but the grind of actually doing the work was draining to me. Very few people can hack it, and many are rather single-minded, if I many stereotype mathematicians for a moment. Fortunately, there are computers that can do the work that a math student must learn to do by hand in calculus, linear equations, statistics, and so on. Therefore, it's essential for an economist to know which statistics test to use for a particular data set to test a particular hypothesis, but maybe not so essential to actually know the "underlying math", i.e. how to do the calculation to perform the test.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Responses to responses.
Really? When? Can you provide any proof that they are doing any better than, say, the Farmer's Almanac
or random guessing?
This point is clearly debatable. Put 100 people in a room with no direction other than to tell them that they are now a company, and see what they "produce", especially if you also tell them that they cannot have anyone in a leadership (managerial) role.
The benefit is not hidden. It takes the form of reduced prices for the consumers in that market due to competition. Lower prices = lower cost of living = higher standard of living if wages are held constant.
Yes, it is just like the climatologists not being able to decide which physical processes are important to model when predicting climate change, or physicists not being able to agree on how many sub-atomic particles there are.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes, you are.
Gee, the same applies to climatology:
If you get ten [climatologists] together can they correctly tell you what will happen to the [weather] tomorrow much less ten years from now? No. In fact if you get ten [climatologists] together you won't even get a majority answer much less a consensus answer.
You seriously want to listen to these people?
And you are clearly wrong. Business profits don't come at the expense of anyone any more than personal profits come at the expense of anyone. You ignorance of how business and the economy actually work is astounding given your propensity for pomposity regarding the value of a good education.
When businesses make investments in infrastructure, they what? Spend their money. When businesses make offshore investments they what? Spend their money offshore just like consumers who purchase foreign made goods. When companies make long-term investments in bonds they what? In the case of corporate bonds they invest in other companies who then do what? Spend the money. In the case of government bonds they in vest in government projects of one sort or another that do what? Benefit society as a whole, assuming the government projects are worthwhile.
I note a disturbing tendency on your part to exhibit a uni-dimensional line of thought here. You must suck at chess. Try thinking a couple of moves down the line, it will help you to think more than 1 inch in front of your nose.
Strike 1 for the physicist (and I use the term loosely in this case).
This reminds me, we never really got back to this conversation. The data we were discussing do not directly support your contention here since you were comparing the profit data for a single company to the over-all demand data for the entire industry. As such, shifts in market share for the company in question can account for the increased profits without gouging (in the sense that we had been discussing it previously).
You need to either account for the over-all industry level of profits to compare to the industry level of demand, or you need to dig up actual sales volume data for the company in question.
Strike 2 for the physicist.
You don't use the term idiot loosely? Hardly. You bandy that term about at anyone who happens to disagree with you even on the most minor of points.
I guess the fundamental question in this case is, "did you, in fact, succeed in getting the job done in spite of the layoffs?"
If the answer is "yes", then I would argue that the people laid off were, in fact, superfluous by definition.
If the answer is "no", then we need to ask the follow-on question, "were the things that didn't get done critical to the success of the business in question?"
If the answer is "yes", then you are most likely out of business and a victim of either (1) free market competition as it works towards keeping the prices for goods and services DOWN and your competitors were obviously the better group at doing so, or (2) a permanent reduction in demand such as that observed in the "Buggy Whip" industry following the introduction and widespread adoption of automobiles.
If the answer is "no", then again I would argue that those things which were not done were, in fact, also superfluous and, in directly, so were the people doing those tasks.
Strike 3 for the physicist.
Again, pretty much the same could be said for climatology:
But they don't. Look at [climatology's] "greater body of evidence." It's a terrible mish mash of conflicting terminology. They can't even agree on which basic measures are appropriate to answer a given question, and with out that critical first step there is no way to collect meaningful data and establish any kind of consensus about what it means.
Some actual evidence of these overly exaggerated claims might be nice, given that you are the one who wants to keep things scientific.
Counter arguments would include the length of waiting lines and the tendency to seek out private alternatives to the government provided services in both Canada and Great Britain. I don't know about France but would be surprised if it was different.
This is SOOO funny. You completely discount the work of others because you don't like the answers they give and in so doing set yourself (and science in general) as some bastian of truth and knowledge.
So, Mr. Physicist, is Shroedinger's cat alive or dead? Or how about, let me know when that radioactive isotope is going to next decay, there, will ya?
Too small for you? OK. Tell me when the next thunderstorm is going to hit Chicago, or New York, or Los Angeles. How many hurricanes are we going to have this year? These are all things governed by the physical sciences, are they not? So regail us with your predictions of the future on these matters.
Too soon for you? OK. Tell me what the natural sources of CO2 are going to do over the next 5, 10, 25, and 100 years. Tell me how many sunspots we are going to have over the same time periods. Tell me what the natural processes for regulating the Earth's temperature are, what the physical dynamics that relate to the interactions of those processes are, and prove to me that you haven't missed anything.
The reality is, since you like to focus on reality, that the so called climatologists are on par with the economists in their ability to predict anything, short term or long term.
Puffing up your chest, and beating on it with your fists, doesn't give your statements any more credence than if they were made by the chimp you are immitating.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This analogy is dead
The Shroedinger's cat paradox is invalid. Quantum entanglement does not scale to macroscopic entities (Unless you put the cat at absolute zero, in which case it is certainly not alive (and even if you did, vacuum flucations would cause a collapse of the entangled state)
The radioactive isotope decays in a probabilistic fashion that will collapse when measured. And those physicists' models are fantastically good at determining that probability. When the half life passes, half has decayed, which is all that the physicists claim to be able to predict (or claim is predictable). Half-life for different substances are not endlessly argued by every physicist around.
In other words, I'm calling you on your stretch of an analogy.
Is this when I call your own ignorant attacks on physics the confused scamperings of a rat in a maze or do we stay away from the dehumanization comparisons? Just checking.
Crushing Take Down
I registered here just to say, "Thank you, now I don't have to put the brain power into ripping up (in a manner far inferior to your comment) this 'knows nothing about economics' diary."
Welcome to SC!
It's usually pretty quiet on the weekends but there's lots of discussion and debate during the week.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
welcome
the more the merrier.
Somehow I remain uncrushed by this crushing takedown
Welcome, I think :-P
I responded to many of the points in this 'crushing takedown'-- perhaps you will do me the courtesy of at least responding to my points, rather than just putting me down by telling me I know nothing about economics? I enjoy a good argument, but merely being insulted kinda sucks...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I'm sorry
For me, "knows nothing about economics" means "knows nothing abotu how economic history contradicts everything neoclassical (now, tragically, 'mainstream') economics recommends."
But there was no need to be rude, and I think I was. My enthusiasm for that post got the best of me.
Do you consider
people that work at the World Bank of the IMF to be expert economists.
There has been some question as to why the IMF has allowed Chinese currency to rise in value beyond the world guidelines and rules, that violate the standards set by the IMF, as Henry Paulson and other prominent economists turn a blind eye to the violations. The consequence has been to undermine the US manufacuring base.
I'm only half stupid
I don't know enough about the IMF or its role in China
... to comment intelligently on this. One note though... my understanding is that the Chinese currency is surpressed in value. It is artificially kept artifically low in value by the Chinese themselves to keep its exports attractively priced. This has indeed undermined the US manufacturing base to a great extent, no question about it in my mind.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Until you understand the
exclusive club that is the driving force in the World Economy, the IMF and the world bank, and how they operate, talking about economics is rather silly.
The IMF has been bending the rules........ and lots of folks want to know why.
Hank Paulson is definitely a globalist who is free market friendly. And many old fashioned economists are perplexed by his willingness to ignore rules, and international laws when it comes to dealing with China.
I an talking about the valuation of Chinese money vs the valuation of American currency. The dollar aint worth what it used to be in the world markets. So I think your understanding is exactly backwards. The Chinese yen has not been surpressed in value, it has risen in value, while the US dollar has fallen.
It is a complicated subject, and one that I can't pretend to fully understand.
As I mentioned, I have a very strong negative view of free markets being 'free'. Free markets look for the cheapest labor they can find. Africa is of course next on the list. Wolfowitz at the World Bank was focusing on Africa, and now our US foreign policy has taken an interest and that includes military involvement.
A lot of the world economy has to do with loans, who is favored to receive the loans, loan forgiveness, and buying up those loans and reselling them at higher interest rates, so the very poor countries who thought they had a good deal are suddenly forced to pay exhorbitant fees for money that was supposed to be cheap.
It is not a pretty picture. But it is the way economics and foreign policy operates at the highest levels.
The business model is similar to the infamous CSap tests. Let's measure everyone to raise standards, while underfunding the overall program. Who benefits, the govt middlemen who do the measuring. The testees are inspired to become middle of the road, bring up the bottom slightly and lowering the top, while stifling creativity. When creativity and imagination are humankinds best resource.
Sorry about the rambling......
I'm only half stupid
Until you understand the
I disagree. We all have imperfect and impartial understandings of many of the topics we discuss. Doesn't make it silly to discuss those topics. When you bring up the IMF with regards to China, I google the topic and try to find out more about the subject. (Though I would appreciate a link every now and again, so that we can be on the same page, hint hint) In that way, I might learn something. But I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the topic.
The Chinese yuan is rising vs. the dollar-- that doesn't preclude the argument that it is still too low vs. the dollar, which is by far the consensus. It also does not preclude the possibility that the value of the yuan is being surpressed. For years, the yuan was fixed in value to the dollar-- its value was not allowed to trade freely vs. the dollar. As the Chinese economy grew much faster than the U.S. economy, this represented certain surpression of the value of the yuan. My understaning is that the Chinese have reformed their policy somewhat, but the complaint has been that the yuan is still artificially low vs. the dollar. Let me put it this way: If you can find me credible sources which claim that the yuan being artificially raised too high vs. the dollar, I'll eat my hat.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You are on.
Now if I can only find those links........!
What flavor is your hat?
I'm only half stupid
Flavor
Perhaps I will soon find out. Polyester blend, I believe ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I'm eating your hat! :+)
Chinese Currency Manipulation Violates IMF Rules
This talks about violating IMF rules and says China is keeping currency values low. from 2003 (I am eating my hat)
From World Law
From here http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/ipe/msg04053.html
from 2002:US manufacturing is in the toilet, and if the Yen doesn't come down soon,
>my $4.63 wouldn't be going anywhere near US auto or consoomer electronics
From here: http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Testimony&Testim...
I still can't find what I am looking for, which was testimony from a recent hearing about China's illegal manipulation of currency, and how both the IMF and Hank Paulson look the other way and ignorse this violation.
So it is the illegal currency manipulation that is problematic. Which free marketeers would say is irrelevant and that ignoring the IMF is the right thing to do. But it hurts American manufacturers very badly.
If I can ever find the transcript from the hearing I will link to it also.
But the essence of it was Paulson's focus on encouraging the Chinese to stop saving at such highrates (currently about 50%) and circulate their money into the economy and investments (that way everyone has access to it). The savings rate in China is high because they have no safety nets. Conversely in the US about 0% it is low because we have safety nets.
I am not sure what all this means, but I am sure it is important! It means I still need proof, to make you eat your hat.
I'm only half stupid
Whew!
I actually like my hat-- as apparel.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What it means
What it means is that China thinks that as a sovereign nation it ought to work for its own best interests, and if the IMF wants it to do something they think is not in their best interest, well then, they will just ignore this IMF.
Even if they have stinkin' badges.
Sounds a little like the Monroe Doctrine must have sounded to the old countries in Europe. What did little old us say? "Colonization is over over here. Don't even try it. Take your old understandings, your Pope-divided world, and stick it."
Now, the old, decadent nation wants to talk about "international law" while the new, coming world power tells the world to stick it.
I hope we are all having our kids learn Chinese. maybe, if they study real hard, and take those hard science courses, they may get a spot on the fourth or fifth Chinese mission to Mars.
Excellent diary, Skymutt
And as I agree with most of what you've laid out here, there is little I can add.
I will admit to a bit of disbelief in some of the poll numbers, since I think Evolution has joined Global Warming as a litmus test of sorts, and that people answering polls may be looking at it that way too. In other words, they may be answering how they think they should based on what they're hearing in the media, not based on what knowledge they actually possess. They're picking sides instead of answering the question.
Perhaps one way of looking at the problem of people not professing a belief in evolution is to consider how meaningful that belief/disbelief is in everyday life and civic life.
Most of us do not make decisions based on how we think evolution applies to the problem at hand, nor do we hound our elected officials about evolutionary matters. We do, however, make economic decisions and take political action based on our understanding of economics.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Wouldn't you agree that
those who don't believe in evolution, would be inclined to accept what the President and his followers say without questioning it. Thereby making it easier to implement economic policies to that group, that in reality might not represent their best interests.
I'm only half stupid
No
Think about it a minute.
Half the kids (or more) who graduate from school cannot name the fifty states, nor find India on a map.
Does that thought scare you as much as their lack of knowledge of evolutionary theory?
Ignorance is rampant. I don't see ignorance of evolutionary theory being any more significant than other types of scientific ignorance. Skymutt's point is very valid: it is civic-related ignorance (economics being one topic) that has much more relevance.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Ignorance is rampant. I
I don't think anyone is saying that ignorance of evolution is somehow worse than ignorance of, say, chemistry. Rather it is being used as a bell weather of total scientific literacy, or lack thereof.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Laughable. And you are displaying such here.
And exactly why would selecting the one most contentious point of disagreement between science and religious be a good "bell weather of total scientific literacy"?
Let's say person X is both religious and a scientist. We know that such people exist because the left tells us so.
If this person is completely up to date on every scientific theory and rigorously applies that thinking and knowledge to all aspects of their life but, as a simple matter of faith, they still believe in creationism over evolution you would view them as being scientifically illiterate over-all?
Incredible.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to justify that position as being even remotely valid or is this just your personal belief that you take on faith?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I would, yes,
because there is no one working in evolutionary biology who has produced a single defendable piece of evidence to support any creationist claims. If someone like Michael Behe can publish a book of claims and have every one of them summarily defeated, but he can still hold to his now evidence-less thesis, then yes, I would call him scientifically illiterate.
It doesn't mean he's a 'bad' person, but it means he has chosen his faith over the results of his own experiments. That's scientifically illiterate in the sense of rejecting the process in favor of another, different "truth".
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I am a product of the public education
system a well funded respected public education system.
Why is the respect for public education waning.
The constant attack on public education by some who don't want to spend 'their' money on kids they don't like or want to associate with. They don't want their tax dollars to go to sex ed, or discussing homosexuality, or science or kids on 'welfare' (read blacks). They about my kids aren't getting educated, while at the same time trying to undercut funding for schools.
Mind you I am not saying we don't need improvement.
Kids are not numbers or stats, and turning them into numbers stifles creative thought and interest in learning.
It is of course not that simple because there are socio-economic factors involved, such as both parents working, stiflingly poor neighborhoods, an influx of spanish speaking students who are asked to pass tests they can't read.
Ignorance has always been rampant.
I am not sure that education has been so consistently and pervasively under attack as a waste of your tax dollars as it is today.
I'm only half stupid
Maybe this ...
U.S. Education Slips In Rankings
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes and I say
there is a direct correlation to the ceaseless and renlentless David Horowitz style attacks on 'librul' universities and public education.
Although I don't deny there are other factors involved. The hatred for public education by some on the right is quite astonishing.
Of course it could be fixed, but then you have to agree on what is science, is public health a communist plot to destroy the minds of children by teaching indifference or tolerance to homosexualtiy and the always contentious sex ed, which some conservatives say leads to the moral decay of their christian daughters.
I'm only half stupid
In fact, missliberties
The decline in public education parallels the involvement of the federal government in public education.
That's a correlation, of course. But interesting.
Did you know that the scores on SATs got so bad by the 90s that the comapny had to "re-center" the scores?
btw, when I threw that 'librul' term in last week, I must admit that I got it from a leftist radical from another board. I have never heard it otherwise. She was usig it much the same way we in the New Left used the Old Left term for liberals, "useful idiots."
I am glad
you find my posts so fascinating and intellectually provacative... that you have singled me out for response ;) (kidding)
The link of federal involvement and low test scores..... I see follows the Reagan years, which would be a correlation to what I am saying about the rights attack on public education and emphasis on states rights.
When I use the term librul I am making fun of the rights harangue on liberalism as the new fascist socialist communist tyranny or populisim that will destroy America, or inotherwords, mocking Rush Limbaugh, who thinks all libruls are idiots as you say.
I'm only half stupid
I don't think Rush
thinks liberals are useful!
When i was in school, there was almost no federal
No one much told the teachers what to teach and how to teach it. And I had grat teachers who had the freedom to shapoe a course the way they thought best, not according to what some group in Washington, D.C. thought was what had to be taught exactly, or the way that group said it had to be taught.
And I can say this: if i were going to High School now, I'd either flunk out or leave on my own. It isn't geared to people who learn on their own.
Public education in the United States at large has been on the
decline for several decades now. However, Boston's public school system, which had boasted being one of the best in the country, began to decline during the 1920's. In the 1930's, during the Great Depression, this decline became more evident, and it kept declining, well into the 1960's. From the 1970's on, it was basically mediocre at best, and is still that way.
Now, in the Bay State, the MCAS tests are required to be taken and passed in order for a student to graduate high school. I believe that these MCAS tests put students with various types of learning/developmental disabilities at a real disadavantage, as well as bright kids, who just simply don't test well, both of which there are plenty. Is it right that a student's ability to graduate high school and therefore his/her future to hinge on one lousy MCAS test? No, I don't. If I were going to high school today, I'd be pretty well screwed, due to my poor academic work and the fact that I don't test well, as would lots of other people.
Madscientist, you're right. G. W. Bush has no use for liberals, or, for that matter, anybody who doesn't fit into his cadre of so-called "principles".
No it isn't.
Sorry:
So we slipped from first place during the Reagan administration. Funny, that.
The people crunching the numbers also identified what they consider the contributing factors for the decline:
If you have different data, showing that our decline is actually due to government involvement, you're more than welcome to post it. But the very article you linked to disagrees.
And look at the countries that have passed us! Finland, Korea, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada and Belgium. Can you say a lot of government involvement?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Well, pico
Number graduating from HS is not what i was talking about. It is a matter of what is learned. I first noticed it in the mid-70s, when the people in my brother's classes at a respectable university couldn't read or write. I mean that seriously. As you know, grade inflation hit in the late 60s, and graduation for S became almost a right.
My first wife had a colleague who had an M.S. in psychology, who had been abruptly terminated ("terminal masters") from his doctoral program, (At St. Louis, as i recall), and had been trying to get into another program for about three years. He gave her the papers he had been sending them, and asked for her advice. She gave me one of his papers to read. it was unbelievable. A sentence might read, "Although the subjects in the first trial were female." The entire paper was riddled with this kind of English, and he had a Master's degree!
And yet, I've always thought that the doomsayers were overstating the case. We have always been able to fill slots in university. And it seems that our universities do do a good job of teaching, even though in the 70s, the university where i was taking graduate classes had courses in "Math as a second language," and "Fear of Math." It also offered remedial classes in every subject that I, over a decade earlier, had to master before even considering applying to college. What we used to be good at was teaching or transferring a love of education.
When I got a chance to teach, and to volunteer in my daughter's schools, I was simply not prepared for what i ran into. My teachers taught from their own curriculum; now, the curriculum is often top down. My teacher never needed an aide; today, there is so much useless paperwork that every teacher needs an aide. IN such systems, documenting replaces the real purpose. That is why we now "teach to the test."
The comparison with Belgium and other countries is not apt, because, as a German correspondent of mine pointed out, Belgium is more like one of our states so far as the education system is concerned. Our federal government adds another layer. Sure, we need "government involvement." that's why we have school boards, and states' government control.
As for the expectations not being set high enough, that is certainly correct. We have let the government set them, rather than the teachers who actually know individual students.
What should we do? Let teachers teach.
Make a direct comparison between the post-Sputnik results and those now, or 1975, or 2000.
Thank the Gang Of Pirates for NCLB
When the goal is to destroy public education the conservatives have been doing a good job.
Ever since the courts ruled that Two School systems were illegal, there has been pressure on the right to destroy them. With a war on Science, and constant pressure to run a Domionist message in every institution from schools to the Military, and a constant anti-tax drumbeat that has virtually defunded education to levels of the previously all black schools, and then defunding still more the schools that need the money most with NCLB, what is the amazement?
Add the social pressures where all parents need at least one job if not three, and a general anti intellectual environment and it becomes a wonder the kids know what they do know, which isn't much. It is bad enough to measure HS graduation, but measure actual knowledge and the US falls much further down the list.
I saw a BBC show where they were making that point, and by hinting that Australia was the United States an amazing number of folks fell for it. True enough they could have only showed the ones who did, but there should not have been any, and I seriously doubt that you could manage that mistake in Australia, or even most of Europe.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
Not necessarily, no.
To use skymutt's example from another comment, we've made it over 200 years with rampant civil ignorance, so how is that any different now? If anything, people are probably more aware of economics issues nowadays, since some aspects of basic econ work their way into the classroom, and we produce many many more econ, finance, and business majors that anytime in our nation's history.
What concerns me about the ignorance about evolution isn't necessarily that those people are ignorant, or that they're choosing one set of traditions over another. I'm very bothered by the disdain it shows for the scientific process, though: much much more so than economic "truths", which are broader and much debated, evolutionary "truths" are the result of a particular set of truth-seeking processes, and the rejection of them is a rejection of those processes. So while people not knowing the relationship between supply and demand might not be the best people to make economic policy, people rejecting the scientific process are rejecting one of the cornerstones of modern thought.
Yeah, I do find that a bit more disturbing than ignorance of microeconomics. If we're in the habit of rejecting science "just because", then we do not have a foundation of empiricism in our arguments.
But it's nothing new. Rejection of science goes hand-in-hand with a long history of anti-intellectualism in this country. The targets are the same ivory tower elites who discuss things like "gravity" and "chemistry" and whatever else. That's why this particular part of our mass cultural ignorance bothers me.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I would be disturbed
If I thought that people actually thought more than two minutes about evolutionary theory before taking a side. And the guys who developed Creation Land or whatever they call it don't count ;} I don't think the average person really cares, and they just choose a side because it's de rigeur these days. Darwin and Gould are not exactly light reading; most people probably got all their knowledge of evolution from Jurassic Park.
We do have a great tradition of popular anti-intellectualism in this country. We cannot all of a sudden claim "wow, that's bad" when we have lovingly cultivated that tradition. I wish it were different, but it is not.
The people who need to know about evolutionary theory do. The rest don't care, and they would not recognize a scientific process if it sat at their dinner table.
Ah, the joys of democracy.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
That's why I consider it a problem,
because people still use the scientific process even if they reject it: "make a theory, test it, see if it holds up" doesn't require a Ph.D. But rejecting the conclusions of the process because one just doesn't like them may say more about our
I understand your points about this being more about choosing sides, or fully in line with our history. I think it's something else that's causing the uproar: the notion that, for the first time in our country's history, evolution is being taught in every community, and if anything it's doing worse. I think we can excuse certain portions of our history on the basis that they had no exposure, but there's really no excuse now.
I guess that sums up my problem: there's no excuse now.
But, points taken.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Who is rejecting conclusions?
Science by definition and its own admission has absolutely nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of god. If you think that science has somehow proven the non-existence of god, which is what would be required to draw a scientific conclusion regarding creationism, you are sorely mistaken.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Huh?
1.) THE science of carbon dating says dinosaurs are older than the bible.
2.) Creationists say dinosaurs can't be that old because of 'the word is the light and the truth'.
Which statement rejects god? Neither.
Which statement rejects the conclusions of science? #2.
Therefore this statement is false:
I'm only half stupid
If god exists ...
and created the universe, then there is nothing that science can do to confirm or refute that. There is nothing that prevents god from constructing the universe in such a way that science would conclude something about the age of the universe that is incorrect.
If god set the initial state of the universe to be whatever he/she wanted it certianly would have been possible for that initial state to have been set, for whatever reasons, such that a carbon dated age would give an inaccurate reading.
Ergo, to prefer the scientific explanation over the theologic one requires FAITH that there is no god since science can neither prove nor disprove the existence thereof.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not on topic
I just wanted to let you know, I had a chance to answer your question
finally this morning.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
That's ludicrous:
ergo means "therefore", and nothing in your previous statements leads logically to this bizarre conclusion. You've posited not "the theologic explanation" but one of many, and come to the conclusion that if the prevailing scientific explanation contradicts it, then it must be godless.
Huh?
Another way to read that comment is, because science can neither prove nor disprove God, then it must believe there is no God. Which makes even less sense.
I'm a little lost, sorry.
You do realize that many religions coexist just fine with the scientific explanation, right? The Catholic Church's official line is pro-evolution, among other things.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Science...
...cannot prove or disprove god, but it can prove or disprove some of god's supposed actions.
The world was not created in 6 day 10,000 years ago. Not unless God is a malevolent being who purposefully tries sabotage faith with contradicting evidence before sentencing those it dupes to hell.
Not really directed at you, pico, per se. Just a general observation.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Good, you know what ergo means.
That's a start. :)
Let's try to follow the conversation, shall we? I thought the general topic of discussion here is whether a lack of belief in evolution (the most commonly recognized alternative being belief in creationism of one form or another) is somehow demonstrative of a rejection of the scientific method or its conclusions.
As I have highlighted above, the scientific method only addresses phenomena within the known and observable universe of which we are inhabitants. Ergo (since you know what it means), neither the scientific method nor any conclusions it leads us to have any bearing on the truth or lack thereof regarding creationism since the belief in creationism appeals to a notion that is, by definition, outside the scope of scientific methods and conclusions.
As I have also illustrated above, the fact that the scientific method leads to conclusions regarding the age of the universe is NOT evidence that the universe wasn't created even 10 minutes ago, much less 6000 or so years ago. The universe could easily have some into being, without assigning any particular motive or intent on the part of its creator, in a state that for whatever reason caused the scientific method to come to the conclusions that it has. Ergo, the fact that science concludes that the universe is much older than 6000 years is NOT evidence that the universe was NOT created 6000 years ago by some supreme being. Science cannot discern this distinction, by definition.
Yes, I do realize this. It is the essence of my point. So to say that someone rejects science just because they believe god created the universe is a fallacy of logic, a liberal pipe dream, a means of furthering the liberal agenda. Take your pick.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Except for
making excuses for the existence of dinosaur bones.
Believe what I tell you to believe and not your eyes.
I'm only half stupid
That's it!
Believe what I tell you to believe and not your eyes.
That's it. They never said that iraq was behind 9/11, but people tell us not to believe our eyes (and ears) to believe what they tell us to the contrary!
Right on the mark, missliberties. and then there will be excuses for the lack of evidence.
Did i mention that i once debated Ken Ham? Remarkably like arguing with the faithful of religious antiBushism!
That's it!
'They' never said there were dinosaur bones in Iraq before 9/11. That's not what I heard.
I see no evidence of that. Has Mr. Ham hidden them, again?
Who is this 'they' that you keep bringing up and who are 'these people' telling 'us' not to believe 'our' (whose) eyes.
Clearly your pronouns are in contempt.
You mention repeatedly this religon that I have not heard of, 'the faithful of religious anti-Bushism' and Ken Ham. Are Mr. Ham and Mr. Bush related?
I'm only half stupid
occam's razor collects some dust
I suppose if you want to leave occam's razor solidly at the bottom of your toolbox, you can treat all possible origins of the universe as equally possible, as you have essentially done so here by using the word "easily". O.J. would have loved to have you on his jury-- since there was a .0001% chance that the blood at the crime scene was not O.J.'s, the blood at the crime scene could have "easily" come from mafia hit men on a drug money collection run gone bad.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Occam's razor.
Is a perfectly fine tool to be used within the context of scientific theory concerning the observable universe. I don't disagree.
In this case, however, it does not apply since we are discussing something that is inherently outside the scope of science and the observable universe.
As for my use of the word "easily", we are talking about a supreme being capable of creating the known universe and establishing the initial state thereof. Given this, it hardly seems a stretch to believe, assuming such a being exists and they actually DID create the universe, that they could have set that initial state to whatever they wanted and that the initial state could have lead science to whatever conclusions it does.
Perhaps the initial state was set in such a manner that its effect on what science might or might not conclude didn't even matter. Our conclusions, in this context at least, may be totally arbitrary even though they are based on perfectly valid scientific theory and methods from our perspective. There is not way to know.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You say...
...that you are discussing something that is outside the scope of science, but on the other hand, you use terms such as "evidence," which are inherently scientific:
When you begin to talk of things in terms of the evidence, you are talking in the terms of science. In science, the evidence is strong that the universe was not created 6000 years ago, but rather billions of years ago; and that evidence is precisely what leads science to its conclusion about the approximate age of the universe.
Evidence does not folow from conclusions-- it leads to conclusions, so your statement is a tautology.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You've lost track of your own argument.
It is. The scientific method leads to the theory of evolution, so rejecting the theory of evolution in favor of an extra-scientific explanation is a rejection of the scientific method.
Incorrect, because your argument assumes that the "theory" of creationism exists entirely within the realm of religious inquiry. It does not: it deals with very physical issues, such as biological origins, species development, species diversity, etc. This isn't just a philosophical game: creationists make claims about biology, about genetics, about chemistry, about cosmology, etc. You cannot have it both ways.
In which case you are rejecting the scientific process, because you are saying that the results of that process are incorrect according to some non-scientific vision of the universe. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that simple statement of fact.
If science tells me that an experiment will yield result X, and if all my experiments continue yielding result X, and if I nonetheless predict that it will yield Y based on something outside the realm of science, then I am rejecting the scientific process.... because I am making a statement about the experiment. What my extra-scientific rationale is is arbitrary. It may be God, it may be a gut feeling, but it doesn't affect whether science has been rejected (it has, by definition).
Once again, you love to use the word "fallacy" without supporting it. Here's a good specific type of fallacy, though: strawman. No one's talking about "someone [who] rejects science just because they believe god created the universe". The issue is someone who rejects science because s/he believes that God created the universe in 6 days, which is not what science tells us, that God placed all the animals and plants in their current form, which is not what science tells us, and that evolution does not occur, which is not what science tells us.
The claims these people are rejecting are specifically scientific claims. Ergo, since you love that word, they are rejecting science.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
OK, so we need a clarification.
When you say (type) these words, do you mean to imply that they reject science only in this specific instance (i.e. with respect to creationism and evolution), or in a more general sense overall (i.e. they reject all scientific theories and the scientific method in total).
Because to me, saying that they "reject science" seems to imply more the latter than the former (especially within the context of statements, from Tlaloc I think, that the lack of believing in evolution is a valid litmus test for determining one's intelligence and scientific understanding overall).
Now for a small side track ...
Do you personally reject the idea that a supreme being created the universe? (In an affirmative sense, not some passive default switch sense.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4on point
Ken Ham's partner for years was a science trained engineer.
Ham himself says "We love science. it's good for making refrigerators run...." He only rejects specific science that conflicts with his belief.
And this is the point.
I just don't think that they can understand that people can accept science and believe in science when it comes to the observable universe, but still have beliefs regarding god and that the two are not in conflict.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4te two are not in conflict
except where they are. Obviously, it depends on beliefs.
I think that the fundamental principle of science is that data is sacred. When someone thinks that something else is sacred (say, a belief that Bush is an evil shill of the oil companies or that God created the earth 6,006 years ago), then when this conflicts with data, that person will attack or ignore data which weighs against the sacred belief.
There is no difference.
If you reject the conclusions based on a set of criteria that lie outside the methods, then you reject the methods. You're saying that the methods cannot yield the correct results.
Which is what makes this even more ludicrous: the scientific process is okay when we like what it says, but not okay when it doesn't? This isn't even a mere tool: it's a philosophy of knowledge, and you can't really cherrypick what you like or dislike - the philosophy holds up or it doesn't. The scientific process is a sound way to analyze the physical world, or it isn't.
Notice: the physical world. It doesn't and can't address the issue of a supreme being. But if it contradicts what one believes the supreme being has done to the physical universe, then one has to choose. Those who deny evolution say that the scientific process is invalid.
So yes: I stick with "rejecting science" as my way of explaining what they're doing.
As for the sidetrack, I could care less if a supreme being created the universe: it has no bearing on my life. I certainly haven't seen anything to convince me that one exists, or that one might have.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Religious dogma.
That is all this is, only the religion in question is science. You are merely denouncing those who fail to tow the line 100% as heretics. That is clearly what you are doing.
You also fail to understand the distinction that I am drawing. Is it your position, then, that even IF a supreme being DID create the physical universe that they COULD NOT POSSIBLY have done so in such a way that properly applying the scientific method would conclude that the universe is BILLIONS of YEARS old even if it had, in point of fact, actually only been created 10 minutes ago?
Remember, we are discussing a case in which a supreme being created the universe. The meta-physical nature of the being in question is obviously completely outside the realm of observation of science. How would science ever possibly be able to distinguish between (a)the case where the universe actually IS billions of years old and (b) the alternative where scientifically it only appears to be billions of years old when in fact it is only 10 minutes old?
So, given that science cannot distinguish between these two cases it seems perfectly valid to say that where the physical world is concerned these people can certainly believe in science and be fully literate therein, but when asked about the origins of life and the universe they still believe in the meta-physical explanation. These two are not in conflict.
Given this, demanding that people accept the scientific explanation is, in effect, demanding that they also accept that there is no god. So the contention that you position doesn't require people to deny god and religion is false ... if they are to adhere to your standard anyway.
I didn't ask you if you cared, I asked you if you deny the existence of a supreme being. Please give me a direct answer and stop being evasive.
The fact that a supreme being has no bearing on your life is a personal choice, is it not. Do you demand that others make the same choice?
And, given that your perception is limited to the physical universe why would you ever expect to see evidence of such a supreme being. You can't possibly. Does that mean that he/she cannot exist?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Um... .No.
Apparently you're not reading a thing I'm writing. There is only one scientific methodology, not five, not a hundred, not a thousand - and it either holds up or it doesn't. We're not debating the results of the inquiry, we're debating the method of inquiry, which is the same whether we're discussing evolution or biology or chemistry or physics or whatever else.
Again, no, you're not reading what I'm saying. It is ARBITRARY whether a supreme being designed the world to "fool" us, because we still either trust the method of inquiry or we do not trust the method of inquiry. If you place another, outside method (here: "faith") above the results of scientific inquiry, then you acknowledge that the scientific method cannot measure the physical world. Again. For the umpteenth time.
Unless you can offer something different to this conversation, I'm done. I'm tired of repeating the same points over and over.
Yeah. Show me any spot, ever, in any conversation, where I "demand that others make the same choice". Ever.
No, it has nothing to do with the evolution discussion. Evolution deals with the physical universe, and I'm not going to rehash the entire long post I've already made on this distinction. It's not evasive: science doesn't care, because, again, science is about measuring the physical universe. If religions want to come in conflict with descriptions of the physical universe, then it's their problem.
And if you want to keep talking yourself in circles, that's your problem.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Pico
I hate to jump in, since you are doing a generally great job, but I'd like to clarify one item.
When you talk of "one" methadology, you are talking about some philosophical notion of the "scientific method." But those who attack specific items of scientific theory, such as the age of the earth, do not attack that. They attack specific methodologies, such as argon dating.
Certainly you are nbot arguing that because a method of inquiry falls generally under the rubric of scientific method, that it is therefore necessarily y ielding good results.
The problem here is the assumption that because my belief is necessarily true (becausae, say, it is a revealed truth), then any methodology which yields data which weighs against it, then the methodology must be faulty. So, the statement isx, "if argon dating yields dates for rocks in the hundres of thousands of years olde, then it must be a fauylty technique." not, "if science yields dates in the hundreds of thousands of years, then science must be wrong."
In fact, scientists do this same thing every day, by comparing results from one technique with another.
Recently, for instance, discrepencies between surface temperatures gathered by various methodologies and atmospheric temperatures gathered by satellite observations were reconciled when drift and temperature change in the satellite were causing the discrepency8, and the satellite data were recalibrated, thus eliminating one of the last doubts about global warming.
As yoiu can predict, there are those who will not accept thjis because they have a belief on faith about Global Climate Change.
Agreed, but I'm talking about
people who posit a 6-day earth and spontaneous creation of modern species, despite the combined nexus of evidence. I totally agree that any one area can be dismantled: that's why evolution will only ever be a capital-T Theory. Besides, if carbon or argon dating were all that evolutionary biologists had to go on, we'd hardly consider evolution a Theory at all - it'd be too slim a foundation for those kinds of claims.
So I don't think we're in disagreement at all, but I do appreciate the clarification.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yes, we agree
Maybe the way to approach the faithful is to simply ask, "Do you think there is any possibility that data could arise tht would change your mind." Someone unconvinced by the science can probably tell you what such data would look like. but someone who was maintaining a belief on faith would have to honestly say "no." They would then proceed to explain away the evidence. The Muslim creationists have a certain advantage here, there being a tradition of viewing God as "Allah the trickster," who will test your faith by such means as planting false evidence! "Do i believe my eyes, or the Koran?" (This tradition, obviously, is not universal.)
To take an example, there are those who believe on faith that the Bushies said that Iraq was behind 9/11 (to take a noncontroversial example). There is no evidence that any Bushie ever said this. In the absence of this evidence various theories have arisen (like the magically delicious hypnotic they-said-it-without-saying-it theory) which seek to explain away the absence of evidence for the conclusion. Maybe it would be interesting to ask such true believers if they can think of anything that would ever change their minds.
Do you believe that someone
who holds science and the scientific method to be "correct" as far as observations and predictions about the physical universe* are concerned and yet ALSO believes in a meta-physical existence is somehow rejecting science and the scientific method as it applies to the physical universe?
My point boils down to:
(1) People can completely buy into science and the scientific method as a means of observing, describing, and even predicting things about the physical universe, and yet still
(2) Believe in God and the proposition that God created the universe without rejecting any part of science and the scientific method in (1), primarily because
(3) The intersection of (1) and (2) is null, which means that in (2) God could have created the physical universe 10 minutes ago and yet within the context of that the physical universe things like carbon dating predict ages much in excess of the 10 minutes.
Which of these propositions are you actually disagreeing with?
-------------------
* You seem to think that I fail to make this distinction between physical and meta-physical but I have clearly done so, reread the posts as I have be scrupulously rigorous in my use of terminology on this point. You seem to be the one that wants to conflate the two. My point is that the two are completley independent and orthogonal, and any attempt on your part to use evidence in the physical universe as a means of disparaging people's beliefs in the meta-physical realms is therefore fallacious. Said another way, people are free to believe whatever they want with respect to the meta-physical universe and still adhere to science and the scientific method as it pertains to the physical universe. The two are not in conflict.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +43, which is a combination of
strawman and absurdity:
1. Strawman: Read the work of creationist institutes like Discovery, which is the driving force behind the ID debate. They do NOT argue that God "could have created the world 10 minutes ago, but made it look like carbon dating shows a much older world." They argue that the science itself is wrong. Evolution does not occur because biology contains structures of irreducible complexity. Fossils are really rapid compressions from the great Flood of Genesis. etc. Take a tour of one of our creationist museums
to see what they're actually saying, not what you're trying to give them as a best-case scenario argument.
2. Absurdity: If you want to play metaphysical games, how do you know that YOU weren't created 10 minutes ago, and then given a lifetime's worth of memories? Sure, it's fun to play that kind of game, but it's arbitrary: we live in the physical (not metaphysical) universe, and even if we were all created 10 minutes ago, the world around us still responds to the laws of the physical (not metaphysical) universe. Does the possibility of your creation 10 minutes ago and the artificiality of your memories mean that you'll abandon your family and friends, since they were just implanted in your brain? No - so why should we abandon the science?
It's like that old philosophy game: what if we're all really jellyfish on Jupiter, dreaming that we're humans on Earth? Answer: it's arbitrary, because even if it's a dream, it's a fully self-contained dream, and everything we study about it gives us the rules within the dream. It doesn't matter if God created the world 10 minutes ago, or a bazillion years ago, or at all: the world around us tells us how long ago it was created, and we can either accept that or not.
Otherwise, you're throwing science out of the window. And trying your best to pretend otherwise.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Your points are irrelevent to the discussion.
Your points 1 and 2 are irrelevant to the discussion at this point. I take you point to be that anyone who believes in creationism is a moron and is rejecting ALL of science. Is this a fair summary of your point? I disagree and am illustrating why your point is incorrect.
So, with regard to what you believe creationists (as opposed to ID proponents because creationism is distinct from ID from the point of view of this discussion). Pure creationism only says that god created the universe as the bible describes, it says nothing of science. Hence your appeal to the ID group is, in fact, the strawman here. Nothing in my discussion this far appeals to anything in ID, only creationism.
With regard to your point 2, so what? That is the fundamental scenario we are discussing primarily because YOU are the one asserting that anyone who believes God created the universe must be bonkers because the physical evidence says it is older than the Bible appears to assert. As I illustrate any evidence gathered in the physical world puts absolutely not constraints on the actions in a metaphysical one.
Now, back to the discussion at hand ...
Despite your characterization of what I said in my point (3), I mentioned nothing in regards to ID or what it's proponents say. I am arguing from a pure creationism perspective.
So, which specific parts of what I actually SAID in my point (3) do you disagree with?
(A) That the intersection of my (1) and (2) is null, or
(B) God could have created the physical universe 10 minutes ago and yet within the context of that the physical universe things like carbon dating predict ages much in excess of the 10 minutes.
I think that you will have a difficult time arguing that you disagree with (A) because you have, in effect, been stressing that exact point throughout your argument wherever you were stressing the focus on the physical universe.
I also believe that you will have a difficult time refuting (B) given that we are inherently talking about the actions of a supreme being who is capable of creating the physical universe AND given that you cannot point to any physical evidence to support your case (by definition) since any such physical evidence only applies to arguments ABOUT the physical universe.
I await your response on these two points.
Given that my points (1), (2) and (3) illustrate that someone can logically adhere to scientific methods as they pertain to the physical universe and still believe that the universe is a creation of a supreme being without conflict, your insistence that (3) is incorrect or in some way "the problem" amounts to a demand on your part that unless people renounce their belief in God in favor of a total focus on the physical universe and the scientific method in all instances that you intend to label them as being morons and anti-science.
Now, I don't have a problem with your taking this stance, per se, only your taking this stance while claiming not to be.
In a context where we reject the notion of a meta-physical existence, this is a correct statement.*
We are, however, not discussing that case.
We are discussing the case where someone still believes in a meta-physical existence. Under that scenario, this is an inaccurate statement since the physical evidence cannot be relied upon to tell the whole story, by definition, and the phsyical evidence may imply a date that is, in fact, incorrect AND science has no means to discerning the truth in this case or its error.
------------------------------
* This is why I keep asking you whether you reject the existence of a supreme being, because your insistence in the truth of this statement logically implies that you have to be rejecting just such an existence.
So again, do you deny the existence of a supreme being?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4God did not create the world 10 minutes ago
I say this with complete certainty because I am God.
Now, I insist that you prove this is incorrect or acknowledge that your point (3) has been disproven.
Oh, and btw, I actually have proven that I am God (10 minutes ago actually) and you acknowledged this as Truth, but I removed all evidence of this from the cosmos (for reasons that are My Own, but were further explained to you and acknowledged as prudent 10 minutes ago before removing said experience from your experience) so don't back out now
My new 11th commandment: Though Shalt Not Put Forth Untestable Conjectures With No Predictive Value in Any Conversation Involving Science.
Your assertion proves nothing.
This conversation is inherently ABOUT meta-physical existence and whether any belief therein automatically justifies labeling someone as having rejected ALL of science and the scientific method where those things actually DO apply, so your 11th Commandment is irrelevant within the context of THIS discussion.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Blasphemy!
An interesting point.
Likewise, if you only follow your moral code when it tells you that you can do what you want, and disregard it whenever it is inconvenient have you rejected ALL of morality?
On interesting question ...
You need to explain this more. Who is the "you" in the statement above? The creationist or the scientist?
The creationist clearly is NOT rejecting their moral code in this example, for they are adhereing to their belief system in addition to the scientific method.
Your comment seems to be suggesting that the belief in science and the scientific method are akin to a moral code, and that rejecting any part of it would be akin to rejecting ALL of it. Interesting because I have stated science is a moral code (i.e. a religion) many times here and such a notion has mostly met with disdain. But now here you are arguing basically the same thing.
Please expound on your point so that I may better discern your meaning.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think my point is very similar to Pico's
My 'you' was neither the scientist nor the creationist (though the analogy was being applied to the creationist)
I would say that a person who rejects the conclusions of their moral code whenever it disagrees with their desires has no moral code. Likewise, someone who rejects the conclusion of the scientific methodology when it leads to conclusions that conflict with their intuition has rejected the methodology. This is distinct from rejecting the specific application of the methodology (bad experimentation) but when repeated application of the methodology leads to very similar conclusions, one has to
a) Reject the methodology
b) Reject the applications of the methodology (methodology was not followed) or
c) Reject the applicability of the methodology to the question.
I would certainly agree that the scientific method is ill suited to evaluating the behavior and impact of entities that operate outside the space-time continuum, (See the Flying Spaghetti Monster for details) and thus, the question of whether the universe was spontaneously created with a 15 billion year history 6000 years ago cannot be evaluated under the Scientific Method.
The question is whether we, as a society, care to make policy based upon such immeasurable phenomena. Shall we entertain lawsuits based upon a theory that the money in the bank was mine and then a demon altered all memories and documents to the contrary? "Give me my millions back and burn Donald Trump as a Witch!!!"
Can you prove that this is not what happened? Of course not. By its very nature it defies proof. Should we teach the theory of demonic financial transfer in business school? I would say no, despite the inability to disprove this fascinating alternative.
However Creationism goes further. This article of faith rejects the scientific method based upon its conclusions and not its application or applicability. Note the ID folks who (inaccurately) reference entropy as supporting their thesis. Theologists quote the bible as documented statements of witnesses. Witnesses whose memories are alterable by far more ephemerous forces than a Supreme Being. So they are willing to accept and put forth measurements and 'evidence' that supports their predetermined conclusion, thus falling under my analogy of people who reject their code only when it constrains their desire.
Your fake theory takes this to an extreme as it rests upon the presumption that the current state of the universe is not based, even loosely, on the past state; that the future state may or may not be based upon the current; for an outside force may reshape it at its whim with an unknown and unknowable probabilty. This decoupling of cause and effect IS a rejection of the scientific method, pretty much in whole.
Your strawmen are showing again.
I never said creationists reject all of science, as if they no longer believe in medicine or something. I've stressed, over and over again, that their rejection of evolution is a rejection of the scientific method, which is roughly akin to saying "I trust 80% of the results my calculator gives me, but not the other 20%."
Problem is, the calculator doesn't work any differently for that 20% than it does for the other 80%, so this distinction is meaningless. Either the machine works, or it does not.
So yes, it's a rejection of science as a concept, not a rejection of the particularities of other fields. They're still fine with the 80% they agree with, but the utter absurdity of picking and choosing results from their calculators highlights why this is a rejection of the scientific method as a means of arriving at truth.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
On the other hand
I once owned a nice RPN scientific calculator from HP that worked fine for everything, had 49 lines of programming with subroutines , but could not be trusted to give you the right value for square roots! That was its only problem. I knew it was in trouble when I took the square root of 16 and got 4.00000012. Reliably. The company said it was a chip error.
Again, I disagree with what you say here. Certainly one can use the scientific method and come to the wrong result. It happens every day. So it is conceivable that the actual methodology used within the scientific method can yield faulty results.
So, a creationist is forced to argue that he trusts the scientific method generally, but not necessarily specific methodologies or instruments. Ever have a clock that didn't keep good time?
Scientists have calibrated argon dating )(a kind of clock) from about 4 billion years before the present to about 100,000 years before the present. So those who deny the results of argon dating have to say that it is wildly inaccurate, and that all those dates should fall within about 6,000 years. To do so, they have to question what we understand about how potassium decays into argon. and so on.
The onus falls on the creationist to explain how this technique gives results they think are so wrong, to my mind. Common sense tells us that the calibration may be off. Recalibration occurs all the time. Maybe the date we measure as a million years before present is actually 1.1 million years before present. But it boggles the mind to think that that date is really 150 years before present as it would have to be to account for the far end of the scale to be 6,000 years before present, in ratio with the far end calibrated at 4 billion years before present. (If that's understandable.)
Trying to make such arguments is a good example of the difficulty that comes from trying to make science conform to a dogmatic belief.
I don't think that creationist scientific arguments are much to worry about.
The creationists do NOT have to make
any arguments regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of any particular scientific method. In fact, their trying to do so would be folly because nothing in the meta-physical realm can posibbly be discerned from within the physical one.
I am arguing a line where there is no need whatsoever to even contradict science to scientific results and still believe that a supreme being created the universe.
So, if we pick some totally arbitrary point in time from the past, say 10 minutes or 6000 years, according to science and the scientific method the physical universe will have been in some state, correct?
My argument is that the supreme being in question could have created the universe at that time but set the initial state to be whatever it was at that time.
So the universe may, in actuality, only be 10 minutes or 6000 years old but the state of things according to the scientific method would appear to be billions of years.
This argument doesn't strain any of the physical scientific findings and still allows people to believe that the universe is, in actuality, only 6000 years old.
I agree that trying to make an argument for how argon and carbon dating need to conform to the timescale laid out in the bible is a rather silly thing to try and do.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Intersting that you find this to be a strawman.
Interesting, because I explicitly queried you on this very point, OK, so we need a clarification.
, where I asked:
Your reply, There is no difference.
, stated:
So, if your position is that there is no difference between rejecting specific conclusions and rejecting all of science in total then I can only conclude that you claim that creationists are rejecting all of science in total. How else can one interpret your reply?
And then in the same post where you claim I am raising a strawman on this very point you state:
Here again, your charge is a rejection of the scientific method and, not just in specific instances but of the entire concept in total. How else am I to interpret this other than "creationists are rejecting all of science".
If I reject the scientific method how can I also be accepting of any of the conclusions arrived at using that method? That makes no particular sense as far as I can tell. Why would I accept any such conclusions if I thought the method was inherently flawed?
Your problem comes about because you continue to conflate the physical and the meta-physical by trying to tie them together. I claim that one can be a creationist and completely accept the scientific method for exactly what it is and completely accept the conclusions drawn from it within the context to which it applies which, by definition, is ONLY those things which are part of the physical universe.
For those things where meta-physical beliefs don't have anything to say one can be more than willing to believe in the scientific method as the best possible means of understanding the nature of the physical universe. Where one's meta-physical beliefs DO have something to say then one has to assess whether the scientific method is yielding correct results in those specific instances.
Up until this post you have be resolutely stressing the wording that you again highlight at the close of your statement here:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ugh.
I'm really tired of rehashing ground that you simply will not get through your thick skull.
No. I'm asserting that anyone who believes God created the universe in six days must be bonkers.
Which is exactly what I argued in the jellyfish from Jupiter example. Metaphysical musings are useless because they have no bearing whatsoever on the physical universe. It doesn't matter if the metaphysical universe involved a 6 day creation or a 6 million year creation or no creation at all: the physical universe was not a 6 day creation.
I can't refute (B) because (B) isn't an argument. It's not even a hypothesis. It's a hypothetical that doesn't matter to any discussions about the physical universe, because - as you point out - it has no effect whatsoever on the physical universe.
Not only that, but let's pop out for a brief meta-discussion: "refute", "argument", "points", "ergo" - you realize all these words relate to logic, and you're positing a scenario that exists both outside of logic and therefore outside of our ability to discuss it logically, right?
That's not just a tangent: it's the whole crux of your design. Posit X which exists outside of science and contradicts science, and it's absolutely untouchable. Why? Because any critique of X - any true critique - is a product of logic and can therefore be dismissed, since X exists outside of logic, too.
So we have to choose, but it's not the binary you keep trying to make it into. One on side, you do have those who reject the process completely and hold to X. But on the other side, you have those who believe but modify their beliefs to accomodate the theory, and you have those whose belief in God has never contradicted the theory, and you have those with no belief in God who have no extra-science reason to reject the theory.
But you'd do good to take a class in logic, because I can't for the life of me see how you come to this conclusion:
Um, no. How about "a demand on my part unless people renounce their belief in a 6-day creation in favor of what the evidence has provided us that I intend to label them as being morons and anti-science." Because they are anti-science, although I prefer "ignorant" (either innocently or deliberately) to "morons".
But you're doing a good job trying, over and over again, to conflate "belief in God" with "belief in a 6 day creation, etc." The "but He could have done it in 6 days and then planted evidence to make it look like a billion years" is a lovely bit of red herring, but nothing more than a useless game. This lonely rock is either 4.5 billion years old, or it isn't. But it was most certainly not created in 6 days, notwithstanding fantasy exercises to the contrary.
Right. Because we're all really jellyfish on Jupiter, and you can't tell me any differently, because every argument you'll throw exists inside the dream, and by nature we cannot critique the dreamers.
...
addendum: Why do you care whether I "deny" God or not? I've talked about my atheism frequently on here, but I'm not sure how it relates to the discussion. Especially since, as I've already pointed out, entities like the Catholic Church have long since rejected creationism in favor of evolutionary theory. Your pat strawmen have a hard time explaining why I haven't condemned Catholics for believing that a Creator doesn't contradict a 4.5 billion year old Earth - oh, I know... because I don't care whether they believe in a Creator. They can even have more than one if they want. Their leaders aren't ignorant enough to reject evidence that causes conflicts in their wobbly jellyfish minds.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Our discussion.
Let us keep the discussion at hand in a very clear light:
1) We are discussing creationists and whether their belief in creationism necessarily implies that they reject [all of] science.
2) Any discussion of creationism necessarily involves an element of the meta-physical, it is not an "optional" or "extraneous" part of the discussion.
This six days bit is new (and thus moving the goal posts in some respect), but it is still fine since it does not change the fundamental elements of my argument. We have had enough discussion already to demonstrate that under a scenario which inherently involves a meta-physical existence that there is no way to prove this based on physical evidence.
So, what is the basis of your making this assertion then?
The only thing that you can do is point to physical evidence which we both agree says nothing about the actions of a meta-physical supreme being. By demanding that "the truth" conform to the physical evidence, you are necessarily excluding the possibility of the actions of a meta-physical supreme being. This is what I mean by YOU conflating the physical and the meta-physical (i.e. you are using one to put constraints on the other). This is not logical under the scenario being discussed.
This is also why I keep asking you if you deny the existence of God. Because if you answer in the affirmative (i.e. that you DO deny the existence of God) I was simply going to respond with "prove it."
We both no you couldn't which is why you have been evasive on this point. Thus, my point would have been that your denial of God, lacking any means of proving that God does not exist, was merely an article of faith and NOT based on the science that you so cherish.
This is all correct in a discussion that only involves the physical universe.
Given that our discussion involves the notion of creationism, which implies some element of the meta-physical by definition, this statement is not correct in our current context. You cannot logically exclude the meta-physical from a discussion that involves creationism.
(B) is merely a logical assertion within the context of our, necessarily, hypothetical context which, by definition, must include some notion of a meta-physical existence. As such, it can be logically refuted using any valid means available within the entirety of that context (i.e. BOTH the physical and meta-physical existences) which do not violate the known restrictions of the scenario (i.e. that observations made within the context of the physical universe can yield no information regarding the meta-physical one by definition).
This is incorrect. Logic is a construct of pure thought, much like mathematics is, and as such it is NOT constrained to just the physical universe or discussions thereof. Science, in the sense that we have been using it here, IS constrained to the physical universe but logic is NOT.
Just like 1+1=2 is true regardless of the existence of a physical universe, so too are the rules of logic. Hence, we are free to construct whatever hypothetical existences that we want, set forth whatever rules we want within those hypothetical existences, and then argue about the implications of those rules logically.
In fact, this is what we have been doing all along in this discussion. The only "rule" we have discussed thus far has been "the existence of a supreme being capable of creating the physical universe with a well defined initial state." Supreme, in this context, obviously means without constraints of any sort.
So, do you accept the logical validity of (B) within the context of our discussion which inherently includes the meta-physical existence of a supreme being, or do you wish to try and refute it (logically)?
First, I have not designed anything. I have merely taken the most fundamental element of creationism (i.e. that a supreme being in a meta-physical existence created the universe) and then analyzed, using logic and logic alone, the truth or falsity of your statement that (paraphrased) "Anyone who believes in creationism (i.e. that God created the universe [in six days] 6000 years ago) is rejecting [all of] science."
Thus far we have been able to discern from your comments the following:
1) You do not make a distinction between rejecting a few of the conclusions of the scientific method (based on meta-physical beliefs) and rejecting [all of] science.
2) You are arguing from the perspective of rejecting the "scientific method" (and presumably any conclusions or knowledge derived therefrom) as a means of determining the true nature of things.
3) You agree that science and the scientific method are limited to observations of and predictions about the physical universe.
4) You (seem to) agree, therefore, that the observations made of the physical universe cannot be used to make any claims whatsoever regarding the existence or actions of a meta-physical supreme being.
5) Thus far we have been unable to get you to commit to whether you deny the existence of a supreme being or not.
Fine, I'll take this rephrasing of my point to be your position then. It is unclear why you think the "6-day creation" meme helps your case any because it does not.
Thus far we have not discussed how long it took our hypothetical supreme being to create the universe. It may have taken any arbitrary amount of time from our perspective. We do not know nor can we ever discern the truth in the context of our current discussion. Just as God may have created the universe 10 seconds, 6000 years, or billions of years in the past, so to the act of that creation may have taken only an instant, 10 seconds, 6 days, or billions of years.
There is no evidence which is observable within the physical universe that can provide such an insight, because by definition the observations of the physical universe say nothing about the existence of actions of a supreme being.
In the end, however, you have confirmed my primary point which is that you are seeking to use the meta-physical beliefs of people to label them as being anti-science even though there is no inherent conflict between their holding meta-physical beliefs and their sanctioning and adhering to scientific principles within the context of the physical universe.
From this perspective, whether you choose to focus on some specific point like "God created the universe in 6 days" or a more general "God created the universe" it does not matter. They amount to the same thing:
And you will seek to do so even though there is no logical conflict between holding those beliefs and accepting science within the context of our physical universe.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is the Matrix? Is not the Matrix?
This was the starting point of Philosophy 101 when I was in college half a century ago, and the basis point that all Philosophy has to stem from. I found it quite interesting that they made it into a movie series.
The Question comes down to only one act of faith, either you can see the universe as it is, or the universe is an illusion that is maintained by an "Other" that arranges what you think you see to maintain the illusion.
If it is the latter there is no hope of ever discovering who or what that "other" is, as any action or awareness is just another part of that illusion. The Matrix movies even hinted that the world Neo found was itself just another level of illusion, being run by still deeper illusionists. That rabbit hole has no bottom.
The only alternative? Flip the finger at the possible illusionists "I know you might be there but I am proceeding as though you are not, because if I considered you at all there would be no proceeding anywhere".
Having actually proceeded, the universe turns out to be remarkably elegant, rational, and crossreferenceable. No matter how many ways you come at a problem, the answer is the same. Try the same technique to something with a mind and you get very different answers.
Left to themselves fractals of trees, rivers, clouds etc have remarkable beauty, it is the decisions of a mind that creates remarkable discontinuity, even if the mind is not human.
By that point, a busybody mind making all sorts of changes, because of this prayer or that, or in response to the actions of other minds, become impossible without leaving a large imprint, and an imprint that is not found.
While this does not put limits on the existence of a god, it puts severe limitations on the activities of such a god.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.
GoRight's Logical Formulation
You are saying that carbon dating is a trick that god played on the universe to purposefully prove science is wrong?
Or that faith by default must deny science to prove that god forgot to mention dinosaurs in the bible and the story of creation.
It is hard to deny the existence of those old dinosaur bones.......
How much faith does it take not to believe your eyes.
I'm only half stupid
No that is not what I am saying.
I am not assigning any particular motive to god in the creation of the universe or the effects that the initial state may have on the scientific method or the conclusions that it comes to. Neither I nor you can possible know what those intentions were.
I am merely saying that just because science draws the conclusion that the universe is billions of years old does NOT mean that god could NOT have created it a mere 10 minutes ago or 6000 years ago. Science, by its very definition, can only draw conclusions based on the observable universe which god, also by definition, is obviously not a part of.
Try as I might to see god with my eyes, I can't since he is not there (as part of the observable universe) for me to, well, observe. The fact that I cannot see him does not mean that he/she does not exist.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes of course
and anyone that has the audacity to disagree with you is of course, arrogant.
And this is away from the topic of the creationists explaining away dinosaur bones...... so the topic has changed, but since you changed it anyone that disagrees with you is of course arrogant.
I'm only half stupid
And of course--
I said in the diary (long forgotten at this point): "I don't really want to get into yet another creation/evolution debate here." Of course, such statements amount to spitting in the wind, everyone knows this. I wonder if it is even possible to refer to the creation/evolution debate in a diary without the discussion spinning off into the world of dinosaur bones...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
:) Oh yea, good point! n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's the children
the children are fascinated with dinosaurs, and the responsible adults have to be able to answer the children, when they ask, 'Mommy how come.......'
I'm only half stupid
I didn't specifically address the
dinosaur bones because they were encompassed by my argument regarding the initial state of the universe.
I don't deny that they exist, but under this exploration of possible creationist perspectives they are merely part of that initial state. Why god might have created them as part of that initial state I know not.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I feel pity for any Supreme Being
He/She/It/They must float about constantly wondering if They are in fact a Supreme Being or were in fact created 10 minutes earlier by the REAL Supreme Being and given the delusion of Godhood. How would God know they were really God; that the 'real' Creator wasn't simply reading Their mind to carry out their desires; thus making them THINK they were all knowing and all powerful?
It is enough to drive a divinity mad!
I believe I addressed this
here
. The issue isn't whether one believes in God, or whether science can give us evidence towards that. The issue is whether people reject the conclusions of the scientific process regarding evolutionary biology, which they are.
Science doesn't care one way or another whether there's a God: what science does care about are processes we can study. And so far, exactly zero claims by creationists and/or ID enthusiasts have met the simplest of scientific litmus tests: and I'm not talking about the grand claim (God), but the technical claims: age of the planet, age of fossils, systems of irreducible complexity, etc. Nada, all debunked and/or completely outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
So yes, the rejection of evolution is a rejection of the entire process of scientific inquiry.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Speaking of ludicrous ...
I think that the key word in your title above is "believe", as opposed to "having succeeded". I assert that you have not.
Whatever conclusions one draws from the scientific method regarding evolution and its processes can, by definition of the scientific principles on which they are founded, NOT be used as evidence for whether or not a supreme being created the universe, nor that being's intentions, nor anything else outside the scope of observable phenomena WITHIN the context of the known and observable universe.
It is entirely possible that a supreme being created the universe and as a artifact of having established the physical laws and the initial state thereof that the scientific method would lead to exactly the conclusions that it has and still be wrong (from the perspective of God not having been involved in the creation).
I have no idea what such a supreme being might be trying to accomplish with the creation of the universe, nor what motives they might have for "fooling" the inhabitants thereof (be it intentionally or otherwise), but either way believing that such a supreme being actually created the universe is not inconsistent with adhering to the scientific method as it applies to our everyday lives as inhabitants OF that universe.
Evolution and belief in creationism are NOT mutually exclusive concepts. One can believe in both, either, or neither.
So say you. But your saying it does not mean that people are obligated to agree with your assessment. And merely refusing to agree with your assessment does not constitute a complete rejection of science or the scientific method.
Some might also hold the opinion that claiming such is arrogant, presumptuous, self-righteous, and, politically speaking, self-serving.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Insults are
.......
certainly insulting pico is completely uncalled for and unnecessary and you don't even own it.
I am sure your excuse will be...... some say.
Some might also hold the opinion that creationists are ignorant fools who were more than eager to believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Some people make that claim still to this day.
I'm only half stupid
I am just being honest
about how I view the topic of discussion. It is true that "I" would count myself among the "some" referenced above. I do feel that the attitudes being expressed here are representative of the adjectives I used to characterize them.
As such, I find those attitudes to be just as insulting as you or pico might consider my characterization thereof to be. I am just being more direct (in the strictest sense of that word).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Honesty.....?
So what you are saying is you think I am stupid and arrogant for my views...... but you are "honest" and not arrogant for yours.
Lovely! Insult me some more.
As such, heretowith and how the definition of the strictest sense, of thereof, just considering the topic, "some" attitudes scorn in the god sense characterizing
abuse in the science of the pathology, defined as directly heretofore and notwith standing, that damae in the strictest definition of the word, that precedes the research mode nodules, is worthless and contemptible, godless creation scientific whereasses.
I'm only half stupid
Simmer down
I don't think that is exactly what he is saying.
Everyone falls into the habit of assuming that her POV is the correct one. It is normal and natural.
Where we err, is to take it a step further and actively assume that those who do not share our POV are ignorant and stupid.
The dividing line between those two positions is faint and not always easy to see. But one deals solely with internal factors, while the other projects those factors outside.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Oh sure ...
just get all reasonable about it. Where's the inflaming rhetoric? Where's the fireworks! Where's the fun!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yeah
So I'm the resident fun Nazi ;}
Just sounded like it was getting a bit too personal. Feel free to ignore me.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
No, as usual, the voice of reason
makes itself known.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I never accused you of being stupid.
Just arrogant because you are discounting the intelligence and opinions of others.
I am only talking about this one point, BTW, not about every thing you ever say.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You insulted
pico........ that was completely and totally uncalled for.
But that is who you are.
I'm only half stupid
I disagree.
And I am tired of not being able to express my opinion without you calling me arrogant and insulting me.
I am now stepping away from the computer.
I have had it with your bullsh*t double standards.
I'm only half stupid
Excuse me ...
but are you not the person that frequently follows me around accusing me of hating people and wanting them all dead?
Let's keep the tit for tat in perspective here, OK?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The insults are cute:
You know what I love about this? It's all hot air, but you didn't address what I actually said, which is that all the claims of creationists and IDers about the physical world have failed to find empirical support. That's not a "so says you" comment: it's a fact.
The proper way to refute it would be with other facts. Which you don't have. Because they don't exist. But it's much easier for you to fall back on insults, like a drowning man clutching at a straw.
I especially love the "arrogant" one, since it has such a long and robust tradition in this country, especially as applied to people who do crazy things like "read" and "study" and "research". The joy of anti-intellectualism is that it's often so strongly bound to rhetoric instead of reality: since you can't refute the argument, you just write off the other person as arrogant. It protects you from the responsibility of having to support a claim.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
RE: The insults are cute:
Sorry, just saw this ...
So says you. Your asserting this being a fact does not make it a fact. The fact that I don't want to chase you down another rabbit hole on things like irreducible complexity doesn't mean that they are not valid concepts, nor does it mean that because you posit some hypothetical means of an eye developing that it actually happened that way. You have zero proof to back up that particular assertion.
In fact, while we are at it, let me now challenge the notion that Evolution is even an outgrowth of the "Scientific Method".
Exactly what experiments have been performed to "validate" the theory of evolution? What hypotheses have been proven and disproven using these experiments?
In what way is the evolutionary foundation anything more than mere conjecture and an arbitrary sorting of bones and fossils which, btw, continue to change to this day?
At its most fundamental, evolution is about the "origin of species" as Darwin termed it, correct? So, please give to me the "scientific definition" of a species and the exact criteria by which we distinguish them. These should be the most fundamental concepts underlying this scientific theory that most of you consider to be on par with Newton's Laws of Motion. One would hope that by now they have a well-defined meaning.
So, please let me know how these basic terms have been defined so that we can properly assess the "proof" that species evolved.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Here's a good, long read
on the scientific background of evolutionary biology
, including both micro- (everyday) and macro- (species, origins). Enjoy!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Seldom is something so true
that it bears repeating:
We do have a great tradition of popular anti-intellectualism in this country. We cannot all of a sudden claim "wow, that's bad" when we have lovingly cultivated that tradition. I wish it were different, but it is not.
The people who need to know about evolutionary theory do. The rest don't care, and they would not recognize a scientific process if it sat at their dinner table.
In fact, we can see it even in the Clamte Change debate. people go to POLITICIANS to get answers!!! The science is readily available, but we go to Al Gore and that Inhofe guy. How stupid is that?
I knew the world had gone made when I heard Gore say, (I forget the actual subject) "Some scientists say X, and some scientists say Y, but the scientists I trust...." Anyone with any respect for science would have cut it off right there. WSe don't "trust" scientists, especially because they make our case, we trust what the scientists do, and we review that.
Our old anti-intellectualism making a religion out of "trusted scientists" and what they say.
And yes, that is American.
Sshh
We've had folks on this site say the same thing: That they would not look further into the facts until said facts had been blessed by their party. Can't trust those slippery scientists, ya know.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
People DO not go to
politicians to get answers about the science of global warming. They go to politicans to change the policies, not the science.
Your mistake is thinking funded schills for the oil industry are actually real scientists.
And please tell me that you are not so naive as to think that getting 'experts' to shut up if they don't represent the oil industries point of view doesn't happen.
Nasa Scientist James Hansen
This may also be as you say an American tradition. Censoring Nasa Scientists and cutting funds for their scientific research.
I certainly don't think it makes politicians or people who speak out against such censorship stupid as you suggest.
Politics is about having a platform and setting priorities.
When a politician says that some scientists might not be all that interested in science and instead in pushing a political viewpoint, I certainly think that is worth noting, especially in light of the so called tradition of 'anti-intellectualism' you say bears repeating.
I'm only half stupid
Really now!
How many people looked up the science in refereed journals, evaluating the research, and deciding for themselves, as opposed to going to some movie by an ex vice president? Where would YOU go for the science?
Just list your journals here....
by the way, there ARE no restrictions on scientists speaking to the public. I know of no case where a scientific study related to global climate change has been prevented from being porinted in a reputable journal by anyone.
And here is a hint: the earth at this present moment is colder by a ling shot than it has been for most of its history. We are in a three million year cold spell. it is going to get warmer. We will survive. I'm only sorry i won't be here to see it. Earth back to normal temperature.
Politics is about having a platform and setting priorities.
Yep, and sometimes we forget that a scientist speaking on policy matters is not speaking as a scientist, but politically. we tend to forget that.
So, read the journals, at least one of the thunder and lightning journals, or at least read the IPCC report, and remember that science always comes with error bars. If what you hear doesn't come with error bars,. it is not science.
Everyone seems to be serving at the pleasure
of the President these days, whether they like or not. Nasa scientists included.
Will the White House censor, er I mean issue policy guidance directives about rocket fuel injectors for space missions. Sshhh...... don't talk about that. That is dangerous science.
I don't see any reason that a NASA scientist on his own personal time should be prevented from voicing his scientific analysis, about say, what you can see is happening to the polar ice caps from outer space.
Mentioning that the ice caps are shrinking is not, repeat IS NOT a political statement. It is a fact. Scientists can analyze the causes, but speaking out about it should not be taboo.
Some scientists say it is caused by global cooling, others by global warming. I report. You decide. I say warming is the correct answer. And I don't need to read a science journal to come to that conclusion.
Is the White House going to start censoring weather reports, and meterologists next? Would that wise, or dangerous?
I'm only half stupid
Of course not.
Because you believe the rhetoric of your political pundits. You drink of the liberal kool-aid.
I could point to examples of unseasonable cold wherever Al Gore goes to speak of Global Warming and then issue this same proclamation for my side of the argument, could I not?
Somehow, though, you side's logic also predicts unseasonable COLD with Global Warming. Any change in either direction is obviously "evidence" for the Global Warming meme, right?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Missing the point
If a NASA scientist sees from his satellite maps that the polar ice caps are melting at a rapid rate, and then mentions it, should he be censored at the pleause of the pleasure of the President. Who is our leading politician.
And one would assume that ice caps do not in fact melt because everything got colder.
You took the quote completely out of context. So please reconsider your response and include the context.
I'm only half stupid
missliberties--Hansen
You should appreciate this here.
Note that there is another side, and it looks like we are talking policy. Hansen thinks we should be doing things we aren't.
This is a two page article. Note that it has happened in the previous administration (where a scientist with a different view was removed from climate research) and Hansen has a history of these kinds of problems, which, btw, endears him to me!
You know, I've worked in government facilities with varying degrees of freedom to speak. Many had a iron-clad rule that any< communication with the public had to be cleared if it involved a topic relating to the institution.
I don't think that Hansen's observations regarding ice caps were restricted.
Note that
Hansen says that after 30 years he has never seen anything like this before.
A lot of folks have been starting out with this as a prelude, "During my service to my country I have never seen.......... (this).
There is also a video clip, but I am not sure you would believe your eyes or your ears.
Of course you could always deny his statement if you think he belongs to the antiBush religon. But such a claim by you would mean nothing to me.
I'm only half stupid
Well, Hansen
is making a personal statement. I noted on the government's website, they alkso published what he says they were disturbed about. This soiunds like a problem with the NASA information officer.
What i can say is that in my off again, on again career in government, I have never seen anything so open as what he describes. Believe me. Those information officers like to have it that everything you say passes through them.
You know, I had seen the video clip. I heard his opinion and description with my own eyes and ears. But, you know, I don't accept everything i see and hear in the mouth of another as the absolute truth. Just a bit of a sceptic, am I. I also didn't hear anything about censorship here.
It is what it is. this administration is and from the beginning has been very controlling.
btw, your powers of mind reading are very poor. You should maybe stick to putting words in your own mouth, not mine.
Or mine.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4*sigh*
This what "scientists talking to the public" means. Apparently you have to have it spelled out in detail, so here goes. No most people don;t go and read the scholarly journals. What they do instead is read, say, interviews with leading scientists, news articles, websites run by scientists like Realclimate.com. They see statements put out by groups like the NAS (that's the National Academies of Science since I strongly doubt you've heard of them).
Is it as good as going directly to the Journals? no, but it's a reasonable compromise between getting informed and the time required for a given subject.
Because, naturally as a random anonymous internet entity you are *way* more credible than the NASA scientist who said otherwise.
Your schtick is sounding more and more like parody with each post.
A) you just changed the argument hoping no one would notice
B) the idea that you don't know something isn't exactly shocking, MS.
Various government scientists have had their public reports edited and "revised" by political hacks. That is a case of their ability to speak to the public being restricted, even prevented.
Quick question- how long have homo sapiens been on the planet? A couple hunderd thousand years. But somehoe you're sure that leaving this cold spell that has existed the entire time our modern species developed and for quite a while before it won;t pose any threat to us.
And you base that on what exactly?
Not to mention that the rise of man's industrial capacity and population has already put an enormous strain on the ecosystem. Big changes in environment temperature are often associated with mass extinctions.
But drawing on your vast knowledge you've determined that a total collapse of the biosphere won't harm us. I'd love to see your research on the matter, please post it.
Just stop. Nobody is buying that you know jack s**t about either science or climatology. This is apparently one of many topics where you need to be quiet and listen.
P.S. the IPCC report on say, projected temperature change does in fact include a measure of uncertainty. for example:
See what I mean about you speaking on topics where you know nothing?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You are an idiot
You should perhaps sit back an listen.
Fact is, I actually read the journals, son.
Various government scientists have had their public reports edited and "revised" by political hacks. That is a case of their ability to speak to the public being restricted, even prevented.
That is ok in a policy document, bad when it is simply a statement of science. Where did I say otherwise? Oh, it was one of your assumptions again.
Seems like assumptions is what you are all about, little one.
btw, i've read the IPCC reports. Hit the journals.
An editorial by David Baltimore in Science in 2004 said: (you do know who David Baltimore is, of course)
I think he pretty well nailed it. The only caution is that the UCS is a policy group whose reports often contain errors.
And perhaps you missed this, very important, from May 2006, reporting the first of the Bush scientific initiatives in Global Climate Change science to reach a conclusion (a news item in Science):
That's right., the Bush administration's science initiative has eliminated the last great block to consensus on the reality of global warming! By backing science! Bet you didn't know that.
Maybe you will stop assuming and actually ask me what i know and think. But the strawman is your chief technique for your screeds, so I don't expect you to stop.
Mad, you're supposed to say
"that comment is idiotic" (or hey, "incorrect" would work too) not "you're an idiot" =) Only sort of kidding; it does seem to keep things calmer when we avoid directly insulting each other.
Obviously I'd also request Tlaloc avoid the insults and cursing, just putting this comment here for convenience. No need for global warming discussions to raise the temperature here too high...
Thanks for the quotes, good info.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
In my defense
I wasn't reponding with "idiot" to anything substantive he had to say. it was to his practice of assuming who I am or what i know, or what i am thinking.
See, the thing is that we probably agree on most things about the science, but he assumed somehow that i do not. He raised a gigantic strawman.
It's frustrating when people who could read instead choose to read in.
Uh huh.
Why, when you just embarrassed yourself? I usually try to listen to those who are competent in a field, not those disproven with thirty seconds of googling.
Yeah, I believe you.
No it was the part where you (falsely) claimed nobody was doing that. Then you were told they were in fact doing it and now here you are denying you ever said it didn't happen. That brings us up to date.
Um, did YOU read it? Cause it went 100% against your argument here. Try reading the stuff you post to make sure it isn't contradicting you entirely first. Just some friendly advice.
Yes, years after the data became overwhelming the Bush administration finally let some data out that supported AGW. Of course this was only after major businesses started to show concern over the issue. In other words when the science is right it gets held up. But when the science is favored by campaing contributors it gets released (accurate or not).
This is your supposed proof?
I have a strong indication of exactly what you know. I have not the slightest care what you think. It's only your inaccuracy laden comments that concern me.
You false said the IPCC data didn't include uncertainty. I proved you wrong. in response you blustered and threw out a bunch of statements that in no way supported your position.
Nice going.
Would you like to admit you were wrong about the IPCC (and pretty much everything else) or try again to cover your backtrail?
Up to you.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
the issues
I really haven't seen any evidence that the administration changed or suppresed data. As in data. I have seen no evidence that a report originally said, "3.556" and the administrtion changed it to "2.115," say.
What i have seen is the alteration of scientists' judgments in policy documents to adhere more closely to what that editor thinks is the policy. I think that is stupid, although we expect, say, EPA policy documents to reflect not the opinions of a particular scientist, but of the agency as a whole. As reported in March of this year:
This is something i think should be done by scientific editors, not political appointees. I've criticized this.
The Bush administration has NOT refused to recognize Global Warming. There is debate about what it means, and what the political response should be.
In a speech to the NOAA in Fegbruary, 2002 (available < HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020214-5.html">right here,, Bush says:
Doesn't sound like he is denying Global Climate Change to me. His policies tend to be market based (although there is a lot of federal spending announced here) and voluntary, and one can certainly argue that they won't work. But it is simply a bald-faced lie to say that Bush is denying Global warming, or trying to hide it.
Yes, years after the data became overwhelming the Bush administration finally let some data out that supported AGW.
Bullcrap. This was, as you know, science directly funded by the administration to ask why atmospheric and surface data differed, and was exactly the question that needed answering. they didn't "let out" the data, they pushed it out. It was carried out, in part, by NOAA scientists. You know, hate brings prejudice and blindness.
BTW, what did you think of those reports?
An excellent point.
And one that will be summarily denied in spite of the obvious truth it presents.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You might also note this,
a passing comment in a journal:
In the case of the penultimate warm interglacial 120,000 years ago, the globe was only about 1°C warmer--a temperature we could reach by 2100--but sea level was 4 to 6 meters higher.
Hmmmmmmmmm. Well within the age of humans, temperature higher by what it might be by 2100, sea level 4 to 6 metres higher, and somehow we managed to survive. And we did so without modern technology or any understanding scientifically of what was happening.
I'll let you in on a little secret, though. I am more for life than simply being anthropocentrically selfish. We, this earth, are living and growing, evolving, we are one, and the individual organisms come and go.
If there had been pseudo-environmentalists like we have today at some time in the distant past, there well could be no humans today. I wonder what there will be none of because of our interference with nature now.
And yes, I don't buy the Judeo-Christian split between man and nature. We are nature, doing what we do naturally. We are blessed or cursed with the ability to see the far consequences of our actions through a lens darkly, and can make changes. That is also what we do naturally. But our record of interfering with nature is piss poor in terms of results. Why? Because we act on insufficient knowledge. That's why we created a disaster by stopping forest fires, and ruined the Colorado system with dams (and not only the Colorado system).
Let's say that we can predict with a certain confidence that Bangledesh will be 2/3 inundated by 2100-2200. If this is a human disaster, it is our fault. We can see it coming, we can do something about it. Or, we can sit around trying to change nature, and just let the people there experience tragedy. Remember, one of the reasons we aggressively went after particulates and sulfur emissions in part because they would cause a new ice age. Odd that our global temperature took off after these emissions were lessened!
We humans have throughout our history balanced adaptation to change with structuring the environment. We have done the latter on a small, local scale. I think that we need to look more closely at adaptation here.
Meanwhile, you might be buying your offspring some of that prime wheat growing land up north in Canada.
btw, I saw a report the other night on how the Greenlanders LOVE what is happening there.
Yah
Here's a (secondhand) link
to the Greenland climate changes.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Yah, Brendan
Also longer growing seasons, more plantable land, less depoendence on imported foodstuffs, less use of fossil fuels and all that the entails, and a generally better economy.
Plus, of course, they are finally reclaiming some land from those damned glaciers!
Why am I not surprised...
...that your response to a global catastrophy boils down to "how can I profit by this?"
Charming.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You're not reading
anything he's saying.
Slow down.
Stop assuming he's a rabid Republican; he's not.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I'm not making that assumption...
...but I am reading what he's saying and it is uniformly disgusting, frankly. Not only is it massively ill informed but it celebrates the worst aspects of human nature.
YMMV.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
MMDV
Some people use an adversarial approach within an inquisitorial context.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
True...
...but the people who play devil's advocate as a learning tool feel no need to lie whenthey take a side they disagree with, because they are not themselves personally invested in it.
What is "MMDV?"
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
My
mileage does vary.
I just made it up, please consider it trademarked.
He didn't lie, you assumed his reference to error bars related to the IPCC report. IMO that interpretation doesn't make sense in the context of either that sentence or his broader point about distinguishing science from politics, but there's a simple way to check: you could ask "Are you saying the IPCC report doesn't include errors?" and then go from there.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Really?
here's his direct quote:
you really don't see that as a direct statement that the IPCC report doesn't include error? Cause I don't see anyway to read it without it saying that. *Especially* when you consider the context of him attacking the IPCC report.
If this was the case don't you think when I pointed out the IPCC includes the uncertainty that he might have said "that's really not what I meant"? Instead what he did was to double down and throw up a smoke screen by trying to drop names and quote long passages that in no way supported his argument. Pretty clearly he was hoping to bluff by intimidating others into assuming he must be right.
*shrug* obviously we disagree. You are of course free to treat his statements as if they have merit. I've seen enough of his schtick to know he's in a pod with GoRight.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Gah
So, read the journals, at least one of the thunder and lightning journals, or at least read the IPCC report
Clearly associating scientific journals with the not-quite-as-scientific but still worth reading IPCC report.
and remember that science always comes with error bars. If what you hear doesn't come with error bars,. it is not science.
Here and is used in the customary way to connect two subclauses. Clarified further in the next sentence.
Could it be more clear? Sure. Could I be misreading it? Possible. But isn't there a chance you misunderstood his statement? What do you lose by asking, just to be certain?
Instead what he did was to double down and throw up a smoke screen by trying to drop names and quote long passages that in no way supported his argument. Pretty clearly he was hoping to bluff by intimidating others into assuming he must be right.
Maybe it didn't support his argument because that wasn't his argument! And there you go again assuming you know his motivations...
Look, I sometimes find debating GoRight and MadScientist to be infuriating, because it feels like I can't win a point no matter how much evidence I present. Best thing to do there is make your case and then walk away. In this instance, I think you're misunderstanding his position, and your unwillingness to request clarification if he says something that doesn't track to you really doesn't help.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
When have I ever infuriated you, Brendan?
Can I help it that it doesn't matter how much "evidence" you present that it doesn't make a false claim true, or a true claim false? :)
As for Tlaloc being "reasonable" like to suggest? Just aint gonna happen.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Today might not be
the best day to ask Brendan that question, as he said he was cranky and got little sleep.
Yes we know for you black is white, except for when you say it's not.
I'm only half stupid
Hey, I'm here!
Tlaloc, it seems that your love of your own fictions about people is greater than your insignificant desire for information or the truth. You could simply ask me, rather than come to a forced conclusion about what i said that simply wraps the data around your belief.
Here, as can be clearly seen, I suggested reading the IPCC reports. Why? They are pretty good, but conservative, encapsulations of the science with some small but not pervasive intrusions of politics. They sufffer from the defects of all summaries: they are summaries. Still, we don't all have the time and resources to go to all the science involved, and we must rely on such summaries.
So, what I am saying is that given the choice, read the IPCC reports instead of your local paper, pop magazines like Discover, your favourite politician, or the writings of some policy group with an agenda, one way or the other.
Argument in short:
Read science.
Read (at least) IPCC reports.
Ergo, I consider the IPCC reports to be scientific.
Science comes with error bars.
Ergo, the IPCC reports comes with error bars (or i wouldn't have recommended them).
the notion here is that one should rely on more than summaries, because summaries can't give the actual flavour of the underlying research.
quote long passages that in no way supported his argument.
What do you suppose my argument was? In fact, Baltimore's editorial, from which I excerpted, pretty much was my argument about the administration and its approach to science. And, if you look, I said so, saying that Baltimore pretty much got it right on.
General argument:
Data is sacred.
Government should not interrupt nor alter the flow of scientific data, except in very rare cases. This is not one of those rare cases.
Policy is a product of politicians, and depends on more than data. Governments can and do regulate what people in government say about policy. (When a researcher in the Clinton government disagreed with his Climate policy, the researcher was transferred to a job having nothing to do with climate.)
If a scientist makes policy statements that conflict with the policy of the government he works for, he is subject to the rules for making such statements under that government.
My prejudice is that no one working for a government agency should be censored on anything he says so long as he makes clear that he is speaking for himself, and not for the government agency he works for, or for the government itself. This is (or should be) as easy as his announcing, "I am not speaking for NASA (or whatever agency) here, nor for the government. I am speaking for myself only."
Where do you disagree?
You know, life is complicated, and the administration is a living thing. While I have joined Baltimore in criticizing the Bush administration with regards to its handling of science and some of its policies, I think that when we see things that are good, we should note that. The science initiative in Climate science is a good thing, and has, as reported, yielded already, valuable insights, which were honestly reported by the administration. To my mind, the study I reported removed the last major scientific hurdle to unfettered acceptance of the fact of global warming. Error bars still exist, but with the explanation of a major anomaly in the data, and its resolution towards the data that clearly shows global warming, I think that the administration has effectively laid the dispute to rest.
Perhaps you think differently.
Hey, that MY meme!
Buy real estate in North Dakota.
and
Actually, I was hoping for ...
Stop trying to give it to someone else!
[ Shakes Head in Disgust ]
Inaccurate as usual ... :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I saw your North Dakota
and raised you a Canada. I mean, who can't love a country whose base currency is known as a "loonie?"
Don't forget the Toonies! :)
My wife grew up in Canada in Branden, Manitoba.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Tlaloc, considering you intelligent
your response to a global catastrophy boils down to "how can I profit by this?"
Charming.
This would simply be a lie.
My response above boils down to "we should do what we can to avoid the catastrophe for actual, real, living people." I gave my opinion that since changing nature is not something we do well, we should also consider adaptation, something we do very well.
And, please, get a sense of humour. Geesh!
This is no political football for me.
Survival is not the issue
I don't think too many people are saying that we wouldn't survive such conditions if they were to occur again. The problem is that it would really suck.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
A point
But one an old arthritic can disagree with!
As we have always done, we can adjust.
We do have a certain human conservatism which leads us to want things to be just as they are now, even when they suck! Some scientists have said that global warming will lead to more food. Would that suck?
Remember, top someone living at sometime in the past when the global temperature was different, they would say that today;'s temperature would suck. Neacderthals in
Europe might argue that warming from the ice age would lesson the habitat to which they accustomed, remove the large mammals on which they relied for food, and that it would suck. Of courwse, in a sense, they were right. Those evil modern humans showed up to out compete them into extinction. (And I weep daily for them!)
Who among is, in our world of people, can truly say that today doesn't suck?
Liberal fanatasy/fallacy/smear tactic.
No such people exist, except in the alt-reality of the liberal mind. Some might call this attitude, arrogant.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Which people?
missliberties only mentions people who don't believe in evolution, then asks if that type of person is more predisposed to acting a certain way.
Of course there are plenty of people who don't believe in evolution: where you disagree is how they'd act under other circumstances.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
There are no such people that would
"accept what the President and his followers say without questioning it".
I think that was plainly obvious from my comment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Why is it arrogant
to ask whether people who accept one thing without questioning it might accept another thing without questioning it?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
It is arrogant to presume this about others ...
while taking on an air of superiority in that regard, especially when it is not true. Hence my labeling it for what it is: a Liberal fanatasy/fallacy/smear tactic.
Unfortunately for you, we all see it for what it is.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Could you re-explain that
so that it actually makes sense.
I'm only half stupid
Sure, if you need it in simpler terms ...
I will be happy to try and oblige.
It is arrogant to assume that you have the moral/intellectual high ground by assigning false beliefs and characteristics to your opponents. It is yet another example of not dealing with your opponents in good faith.
Saying that the religious (i.e. those who presumably don't believe in evolution) "would be inclined to accept what the President and his followers say without questioning it" is to claim that they don't actually think themselves or have opinions of their own, but rather they mindlessly go through life blindly accepting the pronouncements of others.
The clear implication, of course, is that you believe that YOU think for youself but THEY obviously don't, presumably because they hold opinions contrary to yours which just so happen to coincide with those of Bush. Ergo, you are not dealing with them in good faith, in the sense that you seek to discount their intelligence and argue that they don't mean what they say but are merely spouting talking points from above.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I understand perfectly
and we were talking about theories.
What if I argue that the earth is flat. Are you then arrogant for disagreeing with me?
Frankly you have been much rudder and more insulting to my ideas than I have ever ever been to my brother in law who actually believes in creationism and doesn't let his kids play with toy dinosaurs.
It is pretty hard to watch his kids live in such a shletered world. But it is none of my business is it.
Just like it is none of your business to judge what is between me and my doctor.
I'm only half stupid
Only if ...
I tell you that you are only mindlessly accepting that without even thinking about it ... and imply that you may not even mean it but are only swearing allegiance to some higher authority.
It would not be our disagreement on the flatness of the earth that would make me arrogant, but rather how I had described and treated you for holding those beliefs that mattered.
You often talk of common sense and PC being common respect in civil society. Is calling a whole group of people unthinking dupes what you mean when you refer to "civil society?"
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Excuse me
that is what you say about liberals every day in every way.
So spare me the crocodile tears.
I'm only half stupid
Perhaps another way of saying this
Would be to state that just because some average person believes in creationism, that does not necessarily mean that he is "stupid" in other areas, nor that he is any more gullible or susceptible to suasion than the next guy.
I struggle with this daily. People say such stupid things, it is easy to assume that they are indeed stupid in general. But that is rarely the case. People are a mixed bag, composed of both smarts and idiocy.
(I am applying this standard to the average person, not to someone running for office, BTW. I prefer to elect persons of above-average intelligence.)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Agreed. n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So why
isnt PF arrogant and insulting with her above average intelligence comment.
OH that's right you just hate libruls. Gotcha.
I'm only half stupid
Because she is not demeaning
the average or even the below average people (not that religious people are over represented in these groups, just to be clear). She directly acknowledges such in her post. They deserve respect too, and in some sense it is not their fault that they are the way that they are. Do we blame sick people for getting sick? Same idea here.
For example, let's take someone in the 95th percentile on intelligence. This, by definition, means that 95% of the people this person meets are going to appear "stupid" to them. Does that mean those people actually ARE stupid and deserving of ridicule? I argue not.
I mention this only as an extreme illustration of the point, not because I am trying to draw an equivalence between this example and your statement.
I never meant this to turn into such a big deal. Fine, I apologize. I probably overstated things.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4thx
I'm only half stupid
First the science has to be right!
When John Nash first came up with his Math that is now called Game Theory and today underlies the heart of most Economists thinking, even he pointed out that it required one to imagine a persons behavior to be avarice driven only, and that any other emotions wrecked his math!
That he was a paranoid schizophrenic allowed him to come up with the math in the first place, but so many economists (and others) had so much avarice to use the math that they ignored the caveats, and presumed them away, because the math was so pretty.
Over the years Psychologists have actually studied real people in Game Theory situations and have found only two groups that actually behave as game theory predicts.
One is Economists, the other is Psychotics.
Perhaps that is a great part of the problem, If one creates a situation where only Psychotics can do well, then they are the ones who will do best. Adam Curtis had a remarkable series on this that I noted in my diaryand noted the research about the causes of a national pathology in the entry previous to that.
So in this case the logic of appealing to the authority of the Economists falls a bit flat when the higher authority of people who do actual research punches giant holes in the theories.
The Self Made Man is just not admitting where he got all the parts.