Funny. And here I thought I was making the joke, while GP was being dead serious. Perhaps you should follow your own sage advice?
Your concern about my sense of humor and the quality of my life is appreciated. Your douchiness is not. Correct it. Otherwise you are going to... oooo deja vu! o.O
You're changing my scenario, essentially by ignoring that clause that "the structural integrity has been compromised" (this is not something you can pull out of your ass - it's based on some empirical knowledge that comes from inspecting the bridge).
Now, how about actually answering the question instead of writing your own? =p
As for looking like a fool (even in your ah... inspired scenario =p), in the context of what I was replying to, it's still an unqualified success. Next time, try to read the thread you're entering so you understand the context of a particular reply. Sheesh...
I see the problem here. You use the terms "solve", "prove" and "obtain sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt - which is what empirical science seeks to do" interchangeably. Again, your insistence on believing that the goals and procedures of science are precisely equivalent to those of formal mathematical logic are leading you to ignore every single thing I've said thus far. I can only repeat myself a few times before realizing that my carefully defined statements are falling through a coarse-grained filter. This is frustrating because one assumes at the start of a discussion that words retain their meanings in time.
For the last time, I will state what maximum reasonable scientific optimism can say: "we can someday hope to explain every single observed (and in principle observable) phenomenon in nature". 'To explain something' in science is usually to propose a(/several) mechanism(/s) for a phenomenon, all of which are equally plausible in the absence of any additional evidence and use empirically obtained evidence to raise and lower the probabilities that each is the correct explanation. In the physical sciences, these procedures have resulted in such a vast gulf in probabilities between the 'correct' and 'incorrect' hypotheses that we promote the correct ones to "Laws of nature" within the regimes of validity of those theories.
It is absurd to say that science will prove all assertions about the universe with the finality of mathematical (binary) logic - as "True" or "False". This is a frivolous straw man that is difficult to even get outraged over, so absurd is it.
However, OP's statement about there being assertions that can never be proved is equally absurd because (1) we do not "prove" things after the fashion of formal binary logic so that Godel is inapplicable here as a "rigorous proof to the contrary" and (2) until at least one example of such assertions can be found, even the simple plausibility of OP's statement comes into question.
As far as OP is concerned, I'll remind you what I wrote in the post you first replied to:
So, your "rigorous proof to the contrary" (and as I explained, Heisenberg is only remotely relevant and Godel only slightly more so) can only go so far as to introduce the possibility that there might be more to the universe than we can explain (not that there necessarily is). I have no quarrel with that.
Until something is discovered (and again, there are accepted meanings to that verb) that cannot be explained by the scientific method, it is ridiculous to state that "unprovable assertions" may exist. All I can say is, "Big deal. So what?" Thus far, in all the different spheres of meaningful inquiry, the scientific method has triumphed time and again. This is why I called it a "working rule" in that post and further why I cautioned AGAINST turning it into an article of faith (it is reasonable to say that the S. method has a very strong chance of being successful based on its record. It is meaningless to say that it WILL be successful in every possible circumstance that can ever take place - what am I, an armchair philosopher with delusions of grandeur? As I said then, "working rules" are what have furthered our understanding and are far superior to articles of faith and we should NOT degrade the S. method by lowering it to that disgusting standard.
Until we can agree on definitions however, I fail to see what possible purpose this debate could serve.
... in the years after the 2nd world war we used to treat every wild upswing as a bubble and increase the interest rates. Every downturn got a reduction in rates.
It was the same kind of negative feedback that engineers use to prevent oscillation (feedback squeals, for example).
You'll notice it worked. The converse worked much less well.
--dave
Interesting. I like the analogy with negative feedback because there too, you don't need to know in detail what the system will do, so long as you have the ability to affect it. Delving into that analogy though (and I use a PID controller daily and have seen what can fuck up the feedback), you need fast response (before the situation goes so far out of control that your ability to affect the system ceases to be powerful enough to bring it back into lock). You also need to have some idea of what the system will do in response to your injected stimulus (pun very much intended =p) - that's where the predictability comes in - not so much in a theoretical way as in an effective way (say, from tabulating actual responses to stimuli and using those as a guide). This brings us to the most important part of using a feedback loop - tuning the feedback. This tuning (in the economic sphere) is where the debate comes in because the traditionalists feel that tuned parameters from half a century ago should work without any change needed in today's markets. For me (and a system that is many orders of magnitude simpler than a national or global economy), just changing a tiny aspect of my experiment can change the feedback tuning parameters by a large amount (if I want to maintain lock).
If the feedback analogy is valid (and I think it is, so kudos to you), it amuses me that most of the argument today between fiscal conservatives and liberals is merely a fight over what set of tuning parameters to use - set A or set B, instead of actually trying to figure out through empirical analysis what set might actually work (and I suspect neither set A nor set B is even close to being valid for a system that has changed so much since set A last worked and that is so different from what the people who pulled set B out of their ass believe it to be).
That would be like me having to choose between a set of params that I found in a 5 year old lab notebook and set that I input randomly. The latter is idiotic and the former would need massive revision before it would work right for me today.
Let's face it, if it has "econo" anywhere in the name of the discipline, it's about 2 levels softer than sociology.
I work in the physical sciences but I think you're being too harsh on economics here, especially with the statement I quoted above. Economics has little predictive power (I believe it's getting there, but that's debatable). What people don't give it enough credit for is its explanatory power (or postdiction if you will). I think its predictive problems arise simply because of the sheer size and level of connectedness of the global economy and the relatively high (effective) free will of its major players.
In other words, I have a feeling that the fundamental laws of (steady state) economics are relatively simple but the system they describe is more complicated than it is complex. It would be the equivalent of someone in my field (physics) trying to calculate the (thermodynamic) state of a system that never even approaches equilibrium - it's a lost cause for obvious reasons. Also, even if economics could describe final equilibria, I suspect it wouldn't be very useful since the timescales between equilibria might turn out to be too large and what we really need is a working non-equilibrium economic theory (and such things are relatively new even in the physics of relatively simple systems). Once the principles of non-equilibrium statistical physics are as well known as the equilibrium case, I predict (ha!) that economics will rise with dizzying rapidity to a highly predictive science. However, the current state of economic theory appears to be developed enough to be able to explain things with reasonable plausibility after they happen (and based on that, to predict future outcomes of similar events with poor but not abysmal accuracy). You have to remember that a complex global economy has not been in existence for a long enough time to accumulate enough data and enough examples of phenomena.
Sociology has neither predictive nor postdictive ability (naming something is not the same thing as explaining it - a folly practiced by many a discipline that (unlike economics) doesn't even attempt to become rigorous). It could have either ability to at least a limited extent if it wasn't so riddled with agendas and so deeply connected with political science (which again could be a noble science if it wasn't doomed to be an opinion factory from the start). As for your rant about the Nobel Prize in economics, this guy has a bone to pick with you =p
Of course. Any kind of long-term planning with actual facts and the ability to make predictions based on those facts is evil. Best leave it in the hands of a small group of people without the necessary predictive abilities, no incentive at all towards ensuring long-term stability and a strong incentive towards petty short-term power grabs - otherwise known as a democratically elected government. It appears that people detest not being in the loop far more than any economic/political disaster.
Unfortunately (for both of us - I hate being out of the loop too =p), if a small group ever did hold the necessary abilities, I doubt they would actually seek out our trust or our permission for that matter before assuming the mantle of "benevolent overseer" (in their minds of course). Meanwhile, the bubble index is far simpler. Since you allude to psychohistory, I assume you've read all the books and remind you of Cleon's (and later, Linge Chen's) attempted use of (a still embryonic) psychohistory - to make "predictions" anyway (actual ability notwithstanding) in such a way that people's reactions to them bring about the very change you desire. Creating a "bubble index" would be an easy way to guide investors away from the "wrong" investments and thereby create a stopgap solution to this problem.
Even if a predictive ability were rock solid, it is often a mistake to think that it becomes useless "once the secret is out". As far as being able to verify your predictions, that is not the point here. The point is to prevent the event from taking place in the first place, so if making the prediction invalidates it, this is actually a desirable consequence in this case (and many more cases for that matter). It amuses me that such consequences are seen as a failure of said new predictive method. The secret is out and that's precisely what makes it useful (in this case). If I were to predict that a bridge would collapse because its structural integrity has been compromised by an earthquake in the region and this leads to a massive overhaul of the bridge which then prevents its collapse for the next 20 years, have I actually failed? If that's what constitutes failure, I would like to make that my life's goal =p
The trouble then becomes selecting a group that we can trust with the wealth of nations, and the power to destroy by proclamation.
We could call it the Federal Reserve.
I hope you're kidding. GP wrote about "a small group [that] hold the answers". The Fed hardly qualifies. The Fed has power without the corresponding smarts to do something useful with it.
Indeed and just because Evolution MAY happen doesn't mean that it DOES. However, in both examples there is an overwhelming probability.
Not at all. You repeat his/her mistake (hence my repeated assertion of the irrelevance of the evolution argument). Both of you appear to be talking about prior probabilities (or plausibility). The claim that there ARE (or MUST BE) assertions that cannot be proved in the logical framework of the scientific method (Godel's theorem applied to this situation) is flawed because I have seen no examples of such assertions from GP (or you). The claim that evolution exists starts off with a (say) probability of 0.5 and becomes highly probable once all the evidence has been incorporated.
So, evolution is probable because of the empirical evidence in favor of it. It is technically meaningless to talk about the probability of GP's statement because Godel's theorem has been shown to be valid only in the context of formal mathematical logic. And yet, I think it's fair to be somewhat charitable and grant its plausibility as applied to the scientific method (as I have continually done).
What the pseudo-Godelians have to do is show that there exist assertions expressible in a given formal system that have not yet been proved. This is the least possible evidence for backing up their claim. This would (for example) invalidate any religious assertions instantly since they suffer greatly from flaws like undefined terms and additional assumptions. Even the strong version of (shall we say) scientific optimism has only ever claimed to be able (someday) to explain the observed (and in principle observable) aspects of the universe. The idea that the theorems of Godel and Heisenberg (lol) constitute "rigorous proof to the contrary" is laughable in the extreme (the reasons for which I've already explained). It is a matter of deep personal sorrow for me that otherwise rigorous mathematical statements are frivolously applied out of context to anything that strikes people's fancy.
By the way, in addition to all this, I was responding to GP's reverse-arrogance that "rational inquiry cannot explain the universe". My request for a clarification of this absurd statement was not met. Note that no sane person would claim that the products of the scientific method are logically certain - this is empirical science we are talking about, not a closed system of pure logic with statements expressible (in principle) in binary statements.
The following is an amusing speculation on my part - make of it what you will (in other words, it wouldn't make sense to argue with me on the following stuff since I don't claim that it is rigorous in any sense of the word). As far as general considerations go, things may even better than that. Imagine a set of possible systems of logic (that is also somewhat useful for describing natural phenomena - so they must start out with similar assumptions, or at least assumptions that do not contradict observed reality). Each element of that set has associated with it a (further) set of all possible assertions within that system. Now, one can imagine that a phenomenon in nature to be (loosely) associated with an assertion in each system. An assertion that is not "provable" in one system may turn out to be otherwise in some other system.
And all evidence to date only goes so far as to support the possibility of evolution not that it necessarily is.
I agree. Bit of a non-sequitur but *shrug*
You do worse than ask the gp to support the god stuff here, you ask him to prove a negative.
Nope. Just telling him/her not to make the mistake that just because there MAY be unprovable assertions in the system doesn't mean there necessarily ARE.
(reproduced the last one here since I replied to my own post a little while back *eyeroll*)
Oh cry me a river. I'm done trying to be nice to people who actively oppose what they see as "elitism". If the most extreme "idiots" can't be swayed by reason (and it should be fairly obvious what the object of my derision was), I'm sure as hell gonna do my best to gain at least some entertainment out of it.
And yes, it is fun to snark.
And no, it's not fun to resort to the strawman fallacy. Good thing I don't. What I do is mock the people who actually do behave in such ridiculous ways. You're the one who took that and merrily extrapolated it to all religious people everywhere. Good job. How's that righteous indignation fetish working out for you? I'm not a therapist, nor am I immortal - I don't have to pretend that idiotic arguments have substance and waste my time on long debates with people who have shown themselves incapable of them, especially when there are people who are not so far gone and can be brought back to the land of reason and reality.
The only point of my original response was to show that GP's analysis of the consequences (making people look like idiots) wasn't sufficient in and of itself. That consequence would be significant only for people who thought that rationalists' opinions mattered to them.
As for your "stated aims" shtick, I know when to pay lip service to lunacy and when I don't have to. I can let my hair down (so to speak) on here. Obviously I won't when I see an opportunity to further my "stated aims" by playing nice with irrational people in power. Do you really think that such folks read/. ?
is your true goal to ensure that you'll always have someone to look down to?
Yes, that must be it. Clearly, the only people who call out bullshit when they see it must be narcissistic fools looking for "someone to look down to". How could I not see that? My whole self-image has been turned upside down!
You do worse than ask the gp to support the god stuff here, you ask him to prove a negative.
Nope. Just telling him/her not to make the mistake that just because there MAY be unprovable assertions in the system doesn't mean there necessarily ARE.
If explanations are required to be intuitively satisfying, then yes, rational inquiry cannot "explain" the universe. What can? And to which standards? And who decides those standards? And on what basis?
And no, I wasn't trying to put you in the false position of having to defend the god stuff. Just trying to explain why we shouldn't convert the scientific method into mystical bullshit - plays right into their hands.
I think you are logically incorrect in your original assertion simply because (even a flawed application of) Godel's theorem to this question would grant the mere possibility of there being more true assertions than rational inquiry can prove. It does nothing to prove that such truths MUST exist - only that they may exist.
So, your "rigorous proof to the contrary" (and as I explained, Heisenberg is only remotely relevant and Godel only slightly more so) can only go so far as to introduce the possibility that there might be more to the universe than we can explain (not that there necessarily is). I have no quarrel with that. As I said before, the scientific method is a working rule. A working rule is far superior to any article of faith and we must not desecrate said method by reducing it to such a disreputable state.
I think you're right in this. I only bemoan the fact that once we agree that science is not relevant to issues of arbitrary morality, people invariably throw ALL rational thought out the window and solve the problem by simply picking a side for the stupidest possible reasons and sticking to it no matter what (in the abortion issue for instance).
Science may not be useful as the final arbiter in questions of morality but it is invaluable in progressing from assumptions on good and evil to consistently applying assumptions to the questions on hand. Since societies rarely address problems until they become urgent enough to cost money or lives in sufficiently great numbers, science may (sadly) catch up to these questions sooner than you think. In many cases, it is no more complex an issue than a refusal to agree on definitions and then wasting time arguing past each other.
Other people think that it's wrong to kill, even if someone is threatening to kill you, and that self-defense is not justifiable in any circumstance.
How does science tell you how you should behave in society, for instance? It doesn't. That's a question for ethics, which is a part of the field called philosophy.
Ethics doesn't either. Nor does philosophy. All they do is compare and contrast different ideas while carefully not choosing any one over the other, all in the name of relativism. So, we're back to your original question - 'what tells you how to behave in society?' Does anything really fulfill that purpose? Of course there's more to life than figuring out how the physical universe works. It is the inevitable bullshit that follows that assertion that I don't care for (not accusing you of anything, just going by experience). The idea of if science can't answer something, well obviously religion (or some such bromide) is the defacto alternative.
As for your government example, your ideas of looking at empirical evidence from history is a good start. Of course that's going to help. It's not enough, but it's the best we have. And why not? Nearly every horrible way of choosing (or more accurately, stumbling into) a form of government has been tried before. While empirical evidence from historical examples would not be a complete guide to solving your problem, the LACK of such evidence will definitely hurt your chances of doing so.
As far as determining if an action is ethical or not, the first I do is try to compute (approximately of course, but with conscious deliberation - and by compute I mean logically determine) the consequences of my actions. Without that, any morality is a shallow and meaningless one - the kind that gave rise to the old proverb about the path to hell being paved with good intentions. True, the scientific method does not tell me if a consequence is acceptable or not, but it is irreplaceable when to comes to breaking down the consequences of complex actions into simple archetypes ('this will lead to pain', 'that will lead to humiliation', etc.) that one can categorize as acceptable or unacceptable and even assign degrees of the same. As far as that core decision goes, it lies outside of science (and of religion as well). It is a personal decision and is usually based upon upbringing or culture or all those ambiguous constructs that religion falsely believes are her own domain.
In any case, we may disagree about that final core decision but I don't think it's a matter of opinion that the scientific is necessary (but insufficient) in most such matters that have traditionally been seen (inaccurately) as lying outside of science altogether (usually as a precursor to 'lazy moralizing' or as the first step towards justifying an argument from authority).
As in modern probability theory (Bayesian analysis for example), one always makes the distinction between calculating degrees of belief (or consequences of an action) and actually making a decision based on some 'loss function'. In other words, there are empirically favored decisions as well, but they are usually dismissed as 'robotic' or 'unfeeling'. Leavitt's Freakonomics or Sowell's Applied Economics provide some appalling examples of this attitude, where the need to appear moral trumps the need to be moral. Is an action moral unless it actually leads to consequences that have more positive as opposed to negative aspects? Isn't that an empirically verifiable statement (in correlation at least since causality is never considered fair game)?
That is, I agree with you with some do make science into an ideology. I have nothing to say specifically about AGW (as later posts appear to show you as hinting at) - haven't looked into it enough. The guy who who responded to you in detail appeared to have some good points to make though.
Sadly, I do agree with you. The thing that brought it home to me was the (fairly) recent establishment of a Scientific church or temple or something like that here in Berkeley. To them I can only say, "You're doing it wrong".
On an unrelated note, signing your name is good, but doing it twice reminded me of Stephen King's Desperation and its... ah... eccentric sheriff =D. I'm gonna have nightmares again =[
This frustrates the scientist because its like having somebody come to a curling match with a book on american rules football and trying to prove the a sweeper was offsides. It just doesn't apply no matter how hard the outsider thumps his rulebook.
The last remnants of a sports fan lurking inside me just died a quick painless death. *blink*
Sure it can. It's greatest flaw is that many rationalists believe that rational inquiry can eventually produce the complete truth about the nature of the universe, despite rigorous proof to the contrary (cf Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc etc).
Yes of course. And this always backfires too. When something comes up and science cannot (yet) explain it, the religious assholes start crawling out of the woodwork with that magnificent piece of baloney: "If science cannot explain it, it must be our (very-specific-and-he-has-a-name) god and/or our religious viewpoint that MUST explain it." In other words, when you set up the scientific method as the only thing that's valid as a method for discovering objective [i.e. reproducible, non-relative] truth (it probably is but we should try not to harp on that so much), then you run the risk of people actually taking that to mean that if science cannot explain it (yet), it must automatically mean that $your_gods_name$ is responsible for it.
While I agree with your conclusion (that we shouldn't deify the scientific method), I don't agree with your reasons. The theorems you mention above are possibly the most abused mathematical objects ever produced (with the possible exception of the rounded cylinder *cough*). For example, see here. I haven't seen an equivalent book for Heisenberg, but this give a general idea.
Just the fact that unprovable assertions can crop up in systems of logic does not imply that non-scientific proofs become valid. Nor does Heisenberg's principle say anything about scientific theories - it is limited to saying something about the the absolute minimum error in a physical measurement. It's only possible relevance to producing "the complete truth about the nature of the universe" might be that in empirical verifications of scientific theories, there will always be a minimum uncertainty in those measurements and in that sense a tiny ambiguity as to whether the theory is correct. In practice, competing theories differ in predictions by MUCH more than this minimum uncertainty so that while the uncertainty principle is useful (for many many things), it is effectively negligible as far as the question of science being able to explain everything is concerned.
If the scientific method fails (and that happens, nothing's done overnight - it takes time), 'talking out of my ass' (or from some long dead guy's ass - as is usually the case), is not an automatic substitute). This is the fallacy that is born when we make the scientific method (which is good working rule, no more, no less) into some cosmic, mystic gift from the heavens that will always work - the idea that when science fails at something, anything else can immediately take its place with no necessity for further analysis - because after all, only science has standards for truth - no other source of knowledge needs to, right?
Then people who did not accept scientific results really would look like idiots, and they would stand out as idiots.
While I don't disagree with you, I fail to see why everyone seems to think that the above would be an undesirable consequence for everyone. We (a large fraction of the people who populate these boards) seem to appreciate intelligence and admire people who can think critically. This is far from the norm (so give yourself a pat on the back [before you realize the implications and proceed to cuddle up with a Jack Daniels]). There are a lot of people in the world who build communities based entirely on irrational beliefs, that on further contemplation can be seen as idiotic. As long as a large enough congregation of people exists that share your (possibly irrational) beliefs, why do you think it would matter to them that we see them as 'idiots'? It's all relative... right? (Pardon me while I throw up).
In fact, there are MANY constituencies in the United States where an anti-science attitude is a prerequisite for getting elected to office. It doesn't hurt in the slightest even for high office. So, again, it would seem that being seen as 'idiots' by 'those elitist witches and warlocks' (aka, science-based folk) is actually a point of pride for some people.
[snark] As we all know, faith is always superior to reason and no god-fearing American would consort with the scientists, who suck at the Debul's teat. [/snark] Need I say more?
You probably hit the nail on the head with the speed theory. I think it's even more general than that. The idea that a "law" "prohibits" something shouts out for the "law" to be "broken". Too many quotes, but you know what I mean. Also, the disturbing fact that there are upwards of 500 (!) books written about Einstein (mostly for the layperson) makes him somewhat larger than life even though there have been physicists who made far greater contributions to the field. My SCIAM book club new arrivals list this month had "Einstein's God" at the head of the list. *sigh* Enough already. Let the poor man rest in peace o.O
Just try not to go batshiat insane and bulk mail your newly discovered GUT (or to go one better GAGUT - you can't make this shit up =D) to the entire physics department directory and expect a call from the Nobel committee tomorrow.
In all seriousness, as a hobby it can be quite satisfying. You should know however, that the learning curve is quite steep and at the early stages (especially if you haven't had a rigorous mathematical education), it will require more commitment than most hobbies do). From the innumerable samples of *cough* revolutionary theories that have popped into my inbox (slowed down recently -:[ I'm sad), the one thing missing is an understanding of what we do know from empirical observations. Study the theories that have been shown to work, understand their regimes of validity and where they have been known to break down. Then, by all means, work on extending them. Shortly, you can't break the rules intelligently unless you know what they are first. Above all, understand that merely inventing new words does not constitute a contribution to these fields.
"Guilt by Association" seems to be a standard diametrically opposed to a realpolitik standard of "what are the consequences?"
I agree. I so hate finding out that I'm laboring under an inconsistency as large as that. Consider me chastised. I now agree that they should use every single resource at their disposal (as long as they're planning to ditch the bastards somewhere down the road). Just hope that it's a temporary political marriage, and not 'till death do us part'.
But you write like they've already lost your trust. That seems to me, at best, premature.
That might be a valid point. I'll try to be less critical (at least at the start) because, as you said, we really don't have much choice. If we did have more choices, I would probably dismiss the tea party out of hand altogether instead of spending so much time arguing about it.
You don't want to jump on the bandwagon until a lot of others have gotten it rolling.
Just wanna make sure it's not enthusiastically rolling into a ditch and even then, isn't the whole idea of the tea party that they don't want people just jumping on unless they truly believe in their principles and their ability and intent to actually act on those principles? I would rather be mocked as a late adopter by the people who "were there at the beginning" because unless our goals have changed in the past day, the idea is to fix the bloody mess we're in. I'll worry about 10-year reunions later.
If you're a rationalist fiscal conservative, shouldn't you also hope for your own sake that I'm right? Or are you just concern trolling here?
Again, you're right. And I do. In fact, I have many hopes. It is my expectations that are very low. The former are based on what I would like the world to be. The latter are based on what I can see it to be. I became much less angry the day I learned to keep the two separate.
Also, the reason I've stressed the phrase "rationalist fiscal conservative" is because the people I've been ragging are all social conservatives (who are more interested in re-directing government to non-secular purposes rather than cutting down its size). There is a deeply flawed view that is all too prevalent in today's America that the two necessarily go together. That flawed assumption is also why a tea party needs to exist today, because 8 years of Republican government have seen only an expansion in government, in ways that can only shock and dismay libertarians everywhere (so too with the Dems but that's the point - they've never claimed otherwise nor run on a platform of smaller government. The Reps did). While I do admit to a tendency on my own part to be (perhaps overly) suspicious of self-acclaimed fiscal conservatives for what they may also be, I have no problem with waiting to see what the first batch of their candidates will do once they attain power. Let us hope (for once) that they do as they say.
All this was brought home to me with a jolt when I read that people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh admireAtlas Shrugged and had the gall to recommend it to their listeners with a straight face, considering that Rand had absolutely no patience for anti-science trolls. Is there nothing sacred anymore?
That concern by the way, is hardly 'trolling'. If that's what it comes off as, I am at a loss as to why I've spent all this time composing my thoughts.
As for protesting Fox News coverage, no of course they can't (nor should) do that. But at least don't actively associate yourselves with their opinion pundits (as opposed to their news anchors, which perhaps have a modicum of journalistic integrity still left in them) to the extent of having entire rallies organized by them. Is that too much to ask? Nothing made me happier than that link you posted where the tea party is not taking any shit from Palin. Good! Wonderful! Excellent! Keep that up, extend it to other undesirables, and you'll easily get more rationalist support and at higher levels.
If all that Fox had was a fiscally conservative agenda, I'd be their most fervent supporter. But I'm not gonna swallow a ton of crap just because there's an M&M in there somewhere. If the ratio of M&M's to crap changes to a decent amount, I'll change my mind.
And anyway, try not to take every single word I write as a counterpoint to you. Sometimes I ramble and go off on tangents (like the Ayn Rand rant above *sigh*).
Slashdot Mirror
Funny. And here I thought I was making the joke, while GP was being dead serious. Perhaps you should follow your own sage advice?
Your concern about my sense of humor and the quality of my life is appreciated. Your douchiness is not. Correct it. Otherwise you are going to ... oooo deja vu! o.O
they believe that rigor isn't as important as cachet
I can see how that (especially) can be frustrating as hell.
You're changing my scenario, essentially by ignoring that clause that "the structural integrity has been compromised" (this is not something you can pull out of your ass - it's based on some empirical knowledge that comes from inspecting the bridge).
Now, how about actually answering the question instead of writing your own? =p
As for looking like a fool (even in your ah ... inspired scenario =p), in the context of what I was replying to, it's still an unqualified success. Next time, try to read the thread you're entering so you understand the context of a particular reply. Sheesh ...
I see the problem here. You use the terms "solve", "prove" and "obtain sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt - which is what empirical science seeks to do" interchangeably. Again, your insistence on believing that the goals and procedures of science are precisely equivalent to those of formal mathematical logic are leading you to ignore every single thing I've said thus far. I can only repeat myself a few times before realizing that my carefully defined statements are falling through a coarse-grained filter. This is frustrating because one assumes at the start of a discussion that words retain their meanings in time.
For the last time, I will state what maximum reasonable scientific optimism can say: "we can someday hope to explain every single observed (and in principle observable) phenomenon in nature". 'To explain something' in science is usually to propose a(/several) mechanism(/s) for a phenomenon, all of which are equally plausible in the absence of any additional evidence and use empirically obtained evidence to raise and lower the probabilities that each is the correct explanation. In the physical sciences, these procedures have resulted in such a vast gulf in probabilities between the 'correct' and 'incorrect' hypotheses that we promote the correct ones to "Laws of nature" within the regimes of validity of those theories.
It is absurd to say that science will prove all assertions about the universe with the finality of mathematical (binary) logic - as "True" or "False". This is a frivolous straw man that is difficult to even get outraged over, so absurd is it.
However, OP's statement about there being assertions that can never be proved is equally absurd because (1) we do not "prove" things after the fashion of formal binary logic so that Godel is inapplicable here as a "rigorous proof to the contrary" and (2) until at least one example of such assertions can be found, even the simple plausibility of OP's statement comes into question.
As far as OP is concerned, I'll remind you what I wrote in the post you first replied to:
So, your "rigorous proof to the contrary" (and as I explained, Heisenberg is only remotely relevant and Godel only slightly more so) can only go so far as to introduce the possibility that there might be more to the universe than we can explain (not that there necessarily is). I have no quarrel with that.
Until something is discovered (and again, there are accepted meanings to that verb) that cannot be explained by the scientific method, it is ridiculous to state that "unprovable assertions" may exist. All I can say is, "Big deal. So what?" Thus far, in all the different spheres of meaningful inquiry, the scientific method has triumphed time and again. This is why I called it a "working rule" in that post and further why I cautioned AGAINST turning it into an article of faith (it is reasonable to say that the S. method has a very strong chance of being successful based on its record. It is meaningless to say that it WILL be successful in every possible circumstance that can ever take place - what am I, an armchair philosopher with delusions of grandeur? As I said then, "working rules" are what have furthered our understanding and are far superior to articles of faith and we should NOT degrade the S. method by lowering it to that disgusting standard.
Until we can agree on definitions however, I fail to see what possible purpose this debate could serve.
... in the years after the 2nd world war we used to treat every wild upswing as a bubble and increase the interest rates. Every downturn got a reduction in rates.
It was the same kind of negative feedback that engineers use to prevent oscillation (feedback squeals, for example).
You'll notice it worked. The converse worked much less well.
--dave
Interesting. I like the analogy with negative feedback because there too, you don't need to know in detail what the system will do, so long as you have the ability to affect it. Delving into that analogy though (and I use a PID controller daily and have seen what can fuck up the feedback), you need fast response (before the situation goes so far out of control that your ability to affect the system ceases to be powerful enough to bring it back into lock). You also need to have some idea of what the system will do in response to your injected stimulus (pun very much intended =p) - that's where the predictability comes in - not so much in a theoretical way as in an effective way (say, from tabulating actual responses to stimuli and using those as a guide). This brings us to the most important part of using a feedback loop - tuning the feedback. This tuning (in the economic sphere) is where the debate comes in because the traditionalists feel that tuned parameters from half a century ago should work without any change needed in today's markets. For me (and a system that is many orders of magnitude simpler than a national or global economy), just changing a tiny aspect of my experiment can change the feedback tuning parameters by a large amount (if I want to maintain lock).
If the feedback analogy is valid (and I think it is, so kudos to you), it amuses me that most of the argument today between fiscal conservatives and liberals is merely a fight over what set of tuning parameters to use - set A or set B, instead of actually trying to figure out through empirical analysis what set might actually work (and I suspect neither set A nor set B is even close to being valid for a system that has changed so much since set A last worked and that is so different from what the people who pulled set B out of their ass believe it to be).
That would be like me having to choose between a set of params that I found in a 5 year old lab notebook and set that I input randomly. The latter is idiotic and the former would need massive revision before it would work right for me today.
Let's face it, if it has "econo" anywhere in the name of the discipline, it's about 2 levels softer than sociology.
I work in the physical sciences but I think you're being too harsh on economics here, especially with the statement I quoted above. Economics has little predictive power (I believe it's getting there, but that's debatable). What people don't give it enough credit for is its explanatory power (or postdiction if you will). I think its predictive problems arise simply because of the sheer size and level of connectedness of the global economy and the relatively high (effective) free will of its major players.
In other words, I have a feeling that the fundamental laws of (steady state) economics are relatively simple but the system they describe is more complicated than it is complex. It would be the equivalent of someone in my field (physics) trying to calculate the (thermodynamic) state of a system that never even approaches equilibrium - it's a lost cause for obvious reasons. Also, even if economics could describe final equilibria, I suspect it wouldn't be very useful since the timescales between equilibria might turn out to be too large and what we really need is a working non-equilibrium economic theory (and such things are relatively new even in the physics of relatively simple systems). Once the principles of non-equilibrium statistical physics are as well known as the equilibrium case, I predict (ha!) that economics will rise with dizzying rapidity to a highly predictive science. However, the current state of economic theory appears to be developed enough to be able to explain things with reasonable plausibility after they happen (and based on that, to predict future outcomes of similar events with poor but not abysmal accuracy). You have to remember that a complex global economy has not been in existence for a long enough time to accumulate enough data and enough examples of phenomena.
Sociology has neither predictive nor postdictive ability (naming something is not the same thing as explaining it - a folly practiced by many a discipline that (unlike economics) doesn't even attempt to become rigorous). It could have either ability to at least a limited extent if it wasn't so riddled with agendas and so deeply connected with political science (which again could be a noble science if it wasn't doomed to be an opinion factory from the start). As for your rant about the Nobel Prize in economics, this guy has a bone to pick with you =p
Of course. Any kind of long-term planning with actual facts and the ability to make predictions based on those facts is evil. Best leave it in the hands of a small group of people without the necessary predictive abilities, no incentive at all towards ensuring long-term stability and a strong incentive towards petty short-term power grabs - otherwise known as a democratically elected government. It appears that people detest not being in the loop far more than any economic/political disaster.
Unfortunately (for both of us - I hate being out of the loop too =p), if a small group ever did hold the necessary abilities, I doubt they would actually seek out our trust or our permission for that matter before assuming the mantle of "benevolent overseer" (in their minds of course). Meanwhile, the bubble index is far simpler. Since you allude to psychohistory, I assume you've read all the books and remind you of Cleon's (and later, Linge Chen's) attempted use of (a still embryonic) psychohistory - to make "predictions" anyway (actual ability notwithstanding) in such a way that people's reactions to them bring about the very change you desire. Creating a "bubble index" would be an easy way to guide investors away from the "wrong" investments and thereby create a stopgap solution to this problem.
Even if a predictive ability were rock solid, it is often a mistake to think that it becomes useless "once the secret is out". As far as being able to verify your predictions, that is not the point here. The point is to prevent the event from taking place in the first place, so if making the prediction invalidates it, this is actually a desirable consequence in this case (and many more cases for that matter). It amuses me that such consequences are seen as a failure of said new predictive method. The secret is out and that's precisely what makes it useful (in this case). If I were to predict that a bridge would collapse because its structural integrity has been compromised by an earthquake in the region and this leads to a massive overhaul of the bridge which then prevents its collapse for the next 20 years, have I actually failed? If that's what constitutes failure, I would like to make that my life's goal =p
The trouble then becomes selecting a group that we can trust with the wealth of nations, and the power to destroy by proclamation.
We could call it the Federal Reserve.
I hope you're kidding. GP wrote about "a small group [that] hold the answers". The Fed hardly qualifies. The Fed has power without the corresponding smarts to do something useful with it.
Indeed and just because Evolution MAY happen doesn't mean that it DOES. However, in both examples there is an overwhelming probability.
Not at all. You repeat his/her mistake (hence my repeated assertion of the irrelevance of the evolution argument). Both of you appear to be talking about prior probabilities (or plausibility). The claim that there ARE (or MUST BE) assertions that cannot be proved in the logical framework of the scientific method (Godel's theorem applied to this situation) is flawed because I have seen no examples of such assertions from GP (or you). The claim that evolution exists starts off with a (say) probability of 0.5 and becomes highly probable once all the evidence has been incorporated.
So, evolution is probable because of the empirical evidence in favor of it. It is technically meaningless to talk about the probability of GP's statement because Godel's theorem has been shown to be valid only in the context of formal mathematical logic. And yet, I think it's fair to be somewhat charitable and grant its plausibility as applied to the scientific method (as I have continually done).
What the pseudo-Godelians have to do is show that there exist assertions expressible in a given formal system that have not yet been proved. This is the least possible evidence for backing up their claim. This would (for example) invalidate any religious assertions instantly since they suffer greatly from flaws like undefined terms and additional assumptions. Even the strong version of (shall we say) scientific optimism has only ever claimed to be able (someday) to explain the observed (and in principle observable) aspects of the universe. The idea that the theorems of Godel and Heisenberg (lol) constitute "rigorous proof to the contrary" is laughable in the extreme (the reasons for which I've already explained). It is a matter of deep personal sorrow for me that otherwise rigorous mathematical statements are frivolously applied out of context to anything that strikes people's fancy.
By the way, in addition to all this, I was responding to GP's reverse-arrogance that "rational inquiry cannot explain the universe". My request for a clarification of this absurd statement was not met. Note that no sane person would claim that the products of the scientific method are logically certain - this is empirical science we are talking about, not a closed system of pure logic with statements expressible (in principle) in binary statements.
The following is an amusing speculation on my part - make of it what you will (in other words, it wouldn't make sense to argue with me on the following stuff since I don't claim that it is rigorous in any sense of the word). As far as general considerations go, things may even better than that. Imagine a set of possible systems of logic (that is also somewhat useful for describing natural phenomena - so they must start out with similar assumptions, or at least assumptions that do not contradict observed reality). Each element of that set has associated with it a (further) set of all possible assertions within that system. Now, one can imagine that a phenomenon in nature to be (loosely) associated with an assertion in each system. An assertion that is not "provable" in one system may turn out to be otherwise in some other system.
And all evidence to date only goes so far as to support the possibility of evolution not that it necessarily is.
I agree. Bit of a non-sequitur but *shrug*
You do worse than ask the gp to support the god stuff here, you ask him to prove a negative.
Nope. Just telling him/her not to make the mistake that just because there MAY be unprovable assertions in the system doesn't mean there necessarily ARE.
(reproduced the last one here since I replied to my own post a little while back *eyeroll*)
Oh cry me a river. I'm done trying to be nice to people who actively oppose what they see as "elitism". If the most extreme "idiots" can't be swayed by reason (and it should be fairly obvious what the object of my derision was), I'm sure as hell gonna do my best to gain at least some entertainment out of it.
And yes, it is fun to snark.
And no, it's not fun to resort to the strawman fallacy. Good thing I don't. What I do is mock the people who actually do behave in such ridiculous ways. You're the one who took that and merrily extrapolated it to all religious people everywhere. Good job. How's that righteous indignation fetish working out for you? I'm not a therapist, nor am I immortal - I don't have to pretend that idiotic arguments have substance and waste my time on long debates with people who have shown themselves incapable of them, especially when there are people who are not so far gone and can be brought back to the land of reason and reality.
The only point of my original response was to show that GP's analysis of the consequences (making people look like idiots) wasn't sufficient in and of itself. That consequence would be significant only for people who thought that rationalists' opinions mattered to them.
As for your "stated aims" shtick, I know when to pay lip service to lunacy and when I don't have to. I can let my hair down (so to speak) on here. Obviously I won't when I see an opportunity to further my "stated aims" by playing nice with irrational people in power. Do you really think that such folks read /. ?
is your true goal to ensure that you'll always have someone to look down to?
Yes, that must be it. Clearly, the only people who call out bullshit when they see it must be narcissistic fools looking for "someone to look down to". How could I not see that? My whole self-image has been turned upside down!
You do worse than ask the gp to support the god stuff here, you ask him to prove a negative.
Nope. Just telling him/her not to make the mistake that just because there MAY be unprovable assertions in the system doesn't mean there necessarily ARE.
If explanations are required to be intuitively satisfying, then yes, rational inquiry cannot "explain" the universe. What can? And to which standards? And who decides those standards? And on what basis?
And no, I wasn't trying to put you in the false position of having to defend the god stuff. Just trying to explain why we shouldn't convert the scientific method into mystical bullshit - plays right into their hands.
I think you are logically incorrect in your original assertion simply because (even a flawed application of) Godel's theorem to this question would grant the mere possibility of there being more true assertions than rational inquiry can prove. It does nothing to prove that such truths MUST exist - only that they may exist.
So, your "rigorous proof to the contrary" (and as I explained, Heisenberg is only remotely relevant and Godel only slightly more so) can only go so far as to introduce the possibility that there might be more to the universe than we can explain (not that there necessarily is). I have no quarrel with that. As I said before, the scientific method is a working rule. A working rule is far superior to any article of faith and we must not desecrate said method by reducing it to such a disreputable state.
I think you're right in this. I only bemoan the fact that once we agree that science is not relevant to issues of arbitrary morality, people invariably throw ALL rational thought out the window and solve the problem by simply picking a side for the stupidest possible reasons and sticking to it no matter what (in the abortion issue for instance).
Science may not be useful as the final arbiter in questions of morality but it is invaluable in progressing from assumptions on good and evil to consistently applying assumptions to the questions on hand. Since societies rarely address problems until they become urgent enough to cost money or lives in sufficiently great numbers, science may (sadly) catch up to these questions sooner than you think. In many cases, it is no more complex an issue than a refusal to agree on definitions and then wasting time arguing past each other.
Other people think that it's wrong to kill, even if someone is threatening to kill you, and that self-defense is not justifiable in any circumstance.
Easily verifiable empirically don't you think? =D
How does science tell you how you should behave in society, for instance? It doesn't. That's a question for ethics, which is a part of the field called philosophy.
Ethics doesn't either. Nor does philosophy. All they do is compare and contrast different ideas while carefully not choosing any one over the other, all in the name of relativism. So, we're back to your original question - 'what tells you how to behave in society?' Does anything really fulfill that purpose? Of course there's more to life than figuring out how the physical universe works. It is the inevitable bullshit that follows that assertion that I don't care for (not accusing you of anything, just going by experience). The idea of if science can't answer something, well obviously religion (or some such bromide) is the defacto alternative.
As for your government example, your ideas of looking at empirical evidence from history is a good start. Of course that's going to help. It's not enough, but it's the best we have. And why not? Nearly every horrible way of choosing (or more accurately, stumbling into) a form of government has been tried before. While empirical evidence from historical examples would not be a complete guide to solving your problem, the LACK of such evidence will definitely hurt your chances of doing so.
As far as determining if an action is ethical or not, the first I do is try to compute (approximately of course, but with conscious deliberation - and by compute I mean logically determine) the consequences of my actions. Without that, any morality is a shallow and meaningless one - the kind that gave rise to the old proverb about the path to hell being paved with good intentions. True, the scientific method does not tell me if a consequence is acceptable or not, but it is irreplaceable when to comes to breaking down the consequences of complex actions into simple archetypes ('this will lead to pain', 'that will lead to humiliation', etc.) that one can categorize as acceptable or unacceptable and even assign degrees of the same. As far as that core decision goes, it lies outside of science (and of religion as well). It is a personal decision and is usually based upon upbringing or culture or all those ambiguous constructs that religion falsely believes are her own domain.
In any case, we may disagree about that final core decision but I don't think it's a matter of opinion that the scientific is necessary (but insufficient) in most such matters that have traditionally been seen (inaccurately) as lying outside of science altogether (usually as a precursor to 'lazy moralizing' or as the first step towards justifying an argument from authority).
As in modern probability theory (Bayesian analysis for example), one always makes the distinction between calculating degrees of belief (or consequences of an action) and actually making a decision based on some 'loss function'. In other words, there are empirically favored decisions as well, but they are usually dismissed as 'robotic' or 'unfeeling'. Leavitt's Freakonomics or Sowell's Applied Economics provide some appalling examples of this attitude, where the need to appear moral trumps the need to be moral. Is an action moral unless it actually leads to consequences that have more positive as opposed to negative aspects? Isn't that an empirically verifiable statement (in correlation at least since causality is never considered fair game)?
That is, I agree with you with some do make science into an ideology. I have nothing to say specifically about AGW (as later posts appear to show you as hinting at) - haven't looked into it enough. The guy who who responded to you in detail appeared to have some good points to make though.
Sadly, I do agree with you. The thing that brought it home to me was the (fairly) recent establishment of a Scientific church or temple or something like that here in Berkeley. To them I can only say, "You're doing it wrong".
On an unrelated note, signing your name is good, but doing it twice reminded me of Stephen King's Desperation and its ... ah ... eccentric sheriff =D. I'm gonna have nightmares again =[
This frustrates the scientist because its like having somebody come to a curling match with a book on american rules football and trying to prove the a sweeper was offsides. It just doesn't apply no matter how hard the outsider thumps his rulebook.
The last remnants of a sports fan lurking inside me just died a quick painless death. *blink*
Sure it can. It's greatest flaw is that many rationalists believe that rational inquiry can eventually produce the complete truth about the nature of the universe, despite rigorous proof to the contrary (cf Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc etc).
Yes of course. And this always backfires too. When something comes up and science cannot (yet) explain it, the religious assholes start crawling out of the woodwork with that magnificent piece of baloney: "If science cannot explain it, it must be our (very-specific-and-he-has-a-name) god and/or our religious viewpoint that MUST explain it." In other words, when you set up the scientific method as the only thing that's valid as a method for discovering objective [i.e. reproducible, non-relative] truth (it probably is but we should try not to harp on that so much), then you run the risk of people actually taking that to mean that if science cannot explain it (yet), it must automatically mean that $your_gods_name$ is responsible for it.
While I agree with your conclusion (that we shouldn't deify the scientific method), I don't agree with your reasons. The theorems you mention above are possibly the most abused mathematical objects ever produced (with the possible exception of the rounded cylinder *cough*). For example, see here. I haven't seen an equivalent book for Heisenberg, but this give a general idea.
Just the fact that unprovable assertions can crop up in systems of logic does not imply that non-scientific proofs become valid. Nor does Heisenberg's principle say anything about scientific theories - it is limited to saying something about the the absolute minimum error in a physical measurement. It's only possible relevance to producing "the complete truth about the nature of the universe" might be that in empirical verifications of scientific theories, there will always be a minimum uncertainty in those measurements and in that sense a tiny ambiguity as to whether the theory is correct. In practice, competing theories differ in predictions by MUCH more than this minimum uncertainty so that while the uncertainty principle is useful (for many many things), it is effectively negligible as far as the question of science being able to explain everything is concerned.
If the scientific method fails (and that happens, nothing's done overnight - it takes time), 'talking out of my ass' (or from some long dead guy's ass - as is usually the case), is not an automatic substitute). This is the fallacy that is born when we make the scientific method (which is good working rule, no more, no less) into some cosmic, mystic gift from the heavens that will always work - the idea that when science fails at something, anything else can immediately take its place with no necessity for further analysis - because after all, only science has standards for truth - no other source of knowledge needs to, right?
Then people who did not accept scientific results really would look like idiots, and they would stand out as idiots.
While I don't disagree with you, I fail to see why everyone seems to think that the above would be an undesirable consequence for everyone. We (a large fraction of the people who populate these boards) seem to appreciate intelligence and admire people who can think critically. This is far from the norm (so give yourself a pat on the back [before you realize the implications and proceed to cuddle up with a Jack Daniels]). There are a lot of people in the world who build communities based entirely on irrational beliefs, that on further contemplation can be seen as idiotic. As long as a large enough congregation of people exists that share your (possibly irrational) beliefs, why do you think it would matter to them that we see them as 'idiots'? It's all relative ... right? (Pardon me while I throw up).
In fact, there are MANY constituencies in the United States where an anti-science attitude is a prerequisite for getting elected to office. It doesn't hurt in the slightest even for high office. So, again, it would seem that being seen as 'idiots' by 'those elitist witches and warlocks' (aka, science-based folk) is actually a point of pride for some people.
[snark] As we all know, faith is always superior to reason and no god-fearing American would consort with the scientists, who suck at the Debul's teat. [/snark] Need I say more?
No worries. Good discussion though - I appreciate candor without rancor (funny words those). I'm sure we'll converse again sometime.
Ah. A fellow crank-spam-victim =]
You probably hit the nail on the head with the speed theory. I think it's even more general than that. The idea that a "law" "prohibits" something shouts out for the "law" to be "broken". Too many quotes, but you know what I mean. Also, the disturbing fact that there are upwards of 500 (!) books written about Einstein (mostly for the layperson) makes him somewhat larger than life even though there have been physicists who made far greater contributions to the field. My SCIAM book club new arrivals list this month had "Einstein's God" at the head of the list. *sigh* Enough already. Let the poor man rest in peace o.O
I agree. Not a bad idea at all.
Just try not to go batshiat insane and bulk mail your newly discovered GUT (or to go one better GAGUT - you can't make this shit up =D) to the entire physics department directory and expect a call from the Nobel committee tomorrow.
In all seriousness, as a hobby it can be quite satisfying. You should know however, that the learning curve is quite steep and at the early stages (especially if you haven't had a rigorous mathematical education), it will require more commitment than most hobbies do). From the innumerable samples of *cough* revolutionary theories that have popped into my inbox (slowed down recently - :[ I'm sad), the one thing missing is an understanding of what we do know from empirical observations. Study the theories that have been shown to work, understand their regimes of validity and where they have been known to break down. Then, by all means, work on extending them. Shortly, you can't break the rules intelligently unless you know what they are first. Above all, understand that merely inventing new words does not constitute a contribution to these fields.
"Guilt by Association" seems to be a standard diametrically opposed to a realpolitik standard of "what are the consequences?"
I agree. I so hate finding out that I'm laboring under an inconsistency as large as that. Consider me chastised. I now agree that they should use every single resource at their disposal (as long as they're planning to ditch the bastards somewhere down the road). Just hope that it's a temporary political marriage, and not 'till death do us part'.
But you write like they've already lost your trust. That seems to me, at best, premature.
That might be a valid point. I'll try to be less critical (at least at the start) because, as you said, we really don't have much choice. If we did have more choices, I would probably dismiss the tea party out of hand altogether instead of spending so much time arguing about it.
You don't want to jump on the bandwagon until a lot of others have gotten it rolling.
Just wanna make sure it's not enthusiastically rolling into a ditch and even then, isn't the whole idea of the tea party that they don't want people just jumping on unless they truly believe in their principles and their ability and intent to actually act on those principles? I would rather be mocked as a late adopter by the people who "were there at the beginning" because unless our goals have changed in the past day, the idea is to fix the bloody mess we're in. I'll worry about 10-year reunions later.
If you're a rationalist fiscal conservative, shouldn't you also hope for your own sake that I'm right? Or are you just concern trolling here?
Again, you're right. And I do. In fact, I have many hopes. It is my expectations that are very low. The former are based on what I would like the world to be. The latter are based on what I can see it to be. I became much less angry the day I learned to keep the two separate.
Also, the reason I've stressed the phrase "rationalist fiscal conservative" is because the people I've been ragging are all social conservatives (who are more interested in re-directing government to non-secular purposes rather than cutting down its size). There is a deeply flawed view that is all too prevalent in today's America that the two necessarily go together. That flawed assumption is also why a tea party needs to exist today, because 8 years of Republican government have seen only an expansion in government, in ways that can only shock and dismay libertarians everywhere (so too with the Dems but that's the point - they've never claimed otherwise nor run on a platform of smaller government. The Reps did). While I do admit to a tendency on my own part to be (perhaps overly) suspicious of self-acclaimed fiscal conservatives for what they may also be, I have no problem with waiting to see what the first batch of their candidates will do once they attain power. Let us hope (for once) that they do as they say.
All this was brought home to me with a jolt when I read that people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh admire Atlas Shrugged and had the gall to recommend it to their listeners with a straight face, considering that Rand had absolutely no patience for anti-science trolls. Is there nothing sacred anymore?
That concern by the way, is hardly 'trolling'. If that's what it comes off as, I am at a loss as to why I've spent all this time composing my thoughts.
As for protesting Fox News coverage, no of course they can't (nor should) do that. But at least don't actively associate yourselves with their opinion pundits (as opposed to their news anchors, which perhaps have a modicum of journalistic integrity still left in them) to the extent of having entire rallies organized by them. Is that too much to ask? Nothing made me happier than that link you posted where the tea party is not taking any shit from Palin. Good! Wonderful! Excellent! Keep that up, extend it to other undesirables, and you'll easily get more rationalist support and at higher levels.
If all that Fox had was a fiscally conservative agenda, I'd be their most fervent supporter. But I'm not gonna swallow a ton of crap just because there's an M&M in there somewhere. If the ratio of M&M's to crap changes to a decent amount, I'll change my mind.
And anyway, try not to take every single word I write as a counterpoint to you. Sometimes I ramble and go off on tangents (like the Ayn Rand rant above *sigh*).