Here's perhaps some material that will help you understand the concept of falsifiability and the demarcation problem: http://stephenjaygould.org/ctr...
Have a read, and see if that helps you understand what I'm getting at.
You are also right that part of sustainability is directly tied to efficiency, but efficient by what measure?
I'd measure it by joules per unit of output.
I once did the calculation - if you take the total government subsidies around corn, compare that to the bulk commodity prices, and divide by the total US population, you find that the US government buys every single person in the country about a ton of corn each year. The ripple effect of this policy is that there is a glut of corn, so there is cheap animal feed (and cheap meat), plus a lot of cheap raw material for the industrial food system. Corn syrup is the tip of the iceberg. Read some packaged food ingredients and many of the strange names (xanthan gum, maltose, dextrose, etc.) are made from corn.
I'm agreeing with you as hard as I can. And this is exactly the reason why I'm suspicious of grand plans to use the force of government to create a "sustainable" anything:)
I believe that regardless of the inefficiencies of free and open markets, they are superior to any governmental subsidy or regulation programs.
The hypotheses are: our knowledge of physics is correct and our measurement of the system is enough to provide predictive modeling. The null hypothesis is that we can't predict what the earth's temperature well do.
The null hypothesis is that observed climate changes are natural.
While our knowledge of physics must be correct for AGW predictive modeling to be true, it is *not* sufficient to show AGW is correct - which is different, in fact, from asking the question if our models are correct. (i.e., AGW could be true, and our models could be wrong, or AGW could be false, and our models could be "right").
Remember - astrology has predictive models. Just because someone's horoscope is statistically significant to a large group of people doesn't make astrology scientific. The key is the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
You've got the necessary point down. Yes, physics must be true. Yes, humans must exist. But the mere existence of humans and physics does not imply AGW.
What we're asking for is necessary and *sufficient*.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
...that "who's" to blame, us or nature (or both), is irrelevant.
This is absolutely true if you pursue mitigation strategies (if even necessary - could be that global warming is a net positive, which would not only make it "not a problem", it could make it "a good thing we should try to encourage").
I believe the reason why people who believe in AGW feel like it is relevant is because they can ask humanity to stop using natural petroleum, but they can't ask oceans to stop outgassing CO2:)
I challenge you to falsify the greenhouse effect, or falsify the thesis that it fails on a global level.
The greenhouse effect is real. And that fact does not invalidate the null hypothesis of natural climate change.
You really don't seem to understand the burden of the scientific method.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Note, I'm not saying that you have to prove your hypothesis false, I'm simply saying that you must have both necessary and sufficient falsification criteria. Yes, basic physics is required for your hypothesis to be true. However, the mere existence of basic physics doesn't mean you've excluded the null hypothesis.
Here's my hypothesis:
"There is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for AGW."
Falsification criteria: Any direct quote of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for AGW from any scientific paper, journal, or *anyone*.
Argument that the lack excludes the null: Obviously, given the large amount of scientific research on the topic, one would expect this would be an easy task, but if it's never presented or seen, even after looking for it really hard, then it's quite likely it doesn't exist.
Explain how humans releasing sequestered Carbon Dioxide does not act as present day Carbon dioxide does. Is it a different Carbon dioxide? The CO2 that humans and much of natural sources like volcanos is merely re-relasing of sequestered CO2. Explain how it is different.
You're assuming that the CO2 in the atmosphere is driven by completely independent variables, rather than by dynamically dependent variables.
Let's move to a different example you might be more willing to hear - the common wisdom for 40 years has been that fat accumulation is caused by eating too much, and exercising too little. We dump calories in, and don't take enough calories out.
Except this isn't the case. We're complex biological machines, not heat engines, and fat accumulation is actually driven by the hormone insulin. Insulin is driven by blood sugar levels. Blood sugar levels are driven by carbohydrate intake. So, despite the fact that of course we still obey the laws of thermodynamics, it is not a reduction of calories in and increase of calories out that is informative, but rather paying attention to the drivers of insulin.
It is not only possible, it is almost certainly the case that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are moderated by numerous coupled sources and sinks, that dynamically react to perturbations of the system, regardless of source.
I'll leave this for you to think about - despite our continued CO2 emissions, increasing more and more every year, CO2 levels in the atmosphere haven't risen as expected. Called "the missing sink", we have observed over the past 100 years that rather than simply being additive to CO2 in the atmosphere, it appears that the biosphere actually dynamically reacts to changes. What it is that moderates that reaction is a completely open question.
Does Carbon Dioxide retain energy to a greater or lesser extent than other gases as they are present in an atmosphere?
I'll give you another one back - is the absorption effect of CO2 logarithmic?:)
You would then need to prove that either the energy retention does not exist, or how something eliminates the effect.
Again, I think you've misunderstood the scientific method. Energy retention has existed before humans existed. While it is a *necessary* portion of your hypothesis, it is simply not sufficient. Everything you claim is true, and still does not exclude natural climate change.
So again, if you want to play the science game:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Another example is the rate of soil formation compared to the rate of soil loss with industrial agriculture. Too much of that leads to desertification.
Okay, so let's play with that one - how do we weigh feeding people and supporting population with possible desertification in specific regions?
I think it would probably be better to focus on efficiency when we talk about sustainability - the more efficient we are, the more people we can support, with less per capita impact. Considering the huge beneficial impact of the industrial age, it's hard to argue that we would be better off with several billion less people and the technology of 1850.
Since the consequence for not believing in the savior Lord Jesus Christ is eternal damnation, obviously, given the magnitude of the consequences, belief in God is the right choice:)
So anyhow, thanks for the terms and fancy words - but you aren't even replying to anything I wrote.
I think we're on even ground if that's your criteria for judgement:)
What I'm asking for is pretty well defined in the literature by Karl Popper on falsifiability, specifically regarding the demarcation problem.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
What you *seem* to be saying is that you can have an idea, and it can be right, without excluding other explanations. So, say you believe in God, and well, pretty much God can explain anything, from why you lost your keys, to why your wife cheated on you, or why the sun was shining this morning. It's a really, really good and versatile explanation.
But it's not scientific.
The key to finding the demarcation line between "scientific" and "non-scientific" is falsifiability - the two criteria I mentioned above.
What you should have asked the RF technician for is those two criteria. Walking through it, perhaps he would have hit upon the experimental ideas you thought would clearly falsify it - but the point is that these criteria must be announced a priori.
Far from being persuasive, your example with your RF technician undercuts your point - you stated, "I am claiming that someone needs to illustrate that it has no effect", just as your RF technician "demanded that I had to do the work to prove him wrong".
Now, the real question is, now that I've laid out your cognitive dissonance here, how are you going to resolve it? Will it be acceptance and reconciliation? Perhaps a word salad doubling down? Maybe moving to ad hominem?
We are well into the future now and the predictions fell within the error bars. Failure to do so would have falsified the result.
That's *necessary*. That doesn't exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
What we're asking for is necessary and *sufficient*.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Even an astrologer can make predictions that fall within error bars. What they haven't done is show that by their predictions hitting within the error bars, that they've excluded all other explanations.
If only we could agree on the definition of "pollution":)
And even after we agreed on that, there's the question of costs and benefits - is it okay to emit one unit of "pollution" if it causes $1 of harm, and $100 of benefit?
I still remember the whole elementary school lesson on photosynthesis and respiration - it was always so amazing to me that the "pollution" of plants was actually required for animals, and vice versa.
I would consider the fiduciary duty transitive in this case, but I can certainly understand your argument that the Congress may arbitrarily behave in ways that are damaging to the taxpayers and the population at large, in full accordance with the constitution.
I would hope that our moral expectations were higher than that, of course:)
So give me the current work that invalidates the Greenhouse effect on a planetart scale.
I'm happy to stipulate to the "greenhouse effect". That may very well be a necessary component of any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
However, it is not sufficient.
Here are your two currently possible scenarios:
1) the greenhouse effect is real, and observed global warming is natural in origin;
2) the greenhouse effect is real, and observed global warming is anthropogenic in origin.
Simply pointing to "the greenhouse effect" is non sequitur - it does not exclude natural climate change.
So again, if you want to play the science game:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
So far, you've given one observation that matches #1, but you've failed to give any argument that matches #2.
We live in a dynamic universe of uncertainty, and to believe that any prognostications for 10, 20, 50, or 100 years from now are any more accurate than an oil company's outlook for next quarter is hubris.
As sad as it may be, the EPA's most efficient use of resources may be dealing with acute conditions, not chronic ones. We need to start from the position that there are some wicked problems out there with great uncertainty that make the proper policy prescriptions very cloudy. Only by admitting that from the start can we work slowly, diligently, and effectively to something approximating the truth.
I would argue that a government agency has a duty and obligation to make informed policy decisions.
I guess the problem is that uncertainty is a thing, and even where we may be certain about specific bits of science, our "science" of economics is notoriously uncertain, and a straight line cannot be drawn between where we know things, like the absorption spectrum of CO2, and to a field where we obviously don't, like economics.
So even if you accept that AGW is real, significant, measurable, and unprecedented, there is no fundamental justification for believing it would be catastrophic, much less what economic policies would be the most efficient in addressing the problem (say, dramatically curtailing energy usage versus funding adaptation strategies).
I'll leave with this - I believe that if any viable economic model existed that could reliably predict the future, we would have found it by now. The entire western world is incentivized towards it, with the base greed inherent in humanity fueling its fire. But there is no possible way that we can predict what 2050 is going to look like economically, just as the people of 1968 had no possible way of predicting what the economies of 2018 would look like. Heck, we've got no reliable model of economics on *any* timescale:)
Now, to really screw with your head, compare world economics to world climate, and ask yourself which is the simpler problem to solve:)
an EPA with lax or removed policies will only increase costs to taxpayers in the long term when the inevitable mess has to be cleaned up and we have to pay for it.
That's an assertion, not an argument.
The whole point is that we must be judicious about our policies because it is possible, if not highly likely, that we are misjudging risk and spending large costs for marginal problems.
If you live in a world where you skip the part about actually doing the cost/benefit analysis, and assume that all policies are good and all policies will end up with a net benefit, you're going to wake up one day in a dystopia.
Their default action should always be "what protects the environment".
That's a silly reductionist position. The EPA is a government agency that has both a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers, as well as a responsibility to the well being of *citizens*. The "environment" is only a proxy here for protecting humans, and we must *obviously* take off the table those things that protect the "environment" but harm people.
Their default action should always be "what policy balances the costs and benefits for the people".
The scientific method requires starting with the foundation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
To wit:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Having mounds of evidence "consistent with" your hypothesis is not sufficient to make it scientific - after all, astrology has mounds upon mounds of evidence and measurements. What makes a hypothesis scientific is falsifiability.
Yes, AGW would be falsified by CO2 not existing, but the mere existence of CO2 doesn't imply that AGW must be true. Same with the wavelength absorption properties of CO2 - their existence might be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it is not *sufficient* to exclude natural (or other different man made) climate drivers.
To date, there has never been presented any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, much less CAGW (which would at that point possibly drive policy).
1) science, of any sort, doesn't imply any specific policy - assuming that it does is a fallacy;
2) "scientific research" must be distinguished from "sciencey research", the former requiring a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, the latter requiring only lab coats and control over the peer review process;
3) the EPA is a government organization, not a "scientific" one.
I think we're agreeing - depending on a medium's capabilities, and moreover, the most permissive use of a medium's capabilities, seems to create a situation where technology determines the principle, rather than having a principle that can be evenly applied.
The example I'd try to square the circle with is white house press briefings - does the government have the right to arbitrarily exclude unfriendly press? Can they moderate an unfriendly press at all?
Slashdot Mirror
That's not much of an argument :)
Here's perhaps some material that will help you understand the concept of falsifiability and the demarcation problem: http://stephenjaygould.org/ctr...
Have a read, and see if that helps you understand what I'm getting at.
I'd measure it by joules per unit of output.
I'm agreeing with you as hard as I can. And this is exactly the reason why I'm suspicious of grand plans to use the force of government to create a "sustainable" anything :)
I believe that regardless of the inefficiencies of free and open markets, they are superior to any governmental subsidy or regulation programs.
The null hypothesis is that observed climate changes are natural.
While our knowledge of physics must be correct for AGW predictive modeling to be true, it is *not* sufficient to show AGW is correct - which is different, in fact, from asking the question if our models are correct. (i.e., AGW could be true, and our models could be wrong, or AGW could be false, and our models could be "right").
Remember - astrology has predictive models. Just because someone's horoscope is statistically significant to a large group of people doesn't make astrology scientific. The key is the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
You've got the necessary point down. Yes, physics must be true. Yes, humans must exist. But the mere existence of humans and physics does not imply AGW.
What we're asking for is necessary and *sufficient*.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
This is absolutely true if you pursue mitigation strategies (if even necessary - could be that global warming is a net positive, which would not only make it "not a problem", it could make it "a good thing we should try to encourage").
I believe the reason why people who believe in AGW feel like it is relevant is because they can ask humanity to stop using natural petroleum, but they can't ask oceans to stop outgassing CO2 :)
The greenhouse effect is real. And that fact does not invalidate the null hypothesis of natural climate change.
You really don't seem to understand the burden of the scientific method.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Note, I'm not saying that you have to prove your hypothesis false, I'm simply saying that you must have both necessary and sufficient falsification criteria. Yes, basic physics is required for your hypothesis to be true. However, the mere existence of basic physics doesn't mean you've excluded the null hypothesis.
Here's my hypothesis:
"There is no necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for AGW."
Falsification criteria: Any direct quote of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for AGW from any scientific paper, journal, or *anyone*.
Argument that the lack excludes the null: Obviously, given the large amount of scientific research on the topic, one would expect this would be an easy task, but if it's never presented or seen, even after looking for it really hard, then it's quite likely it doesn't exist.
You're assuming that the CO2 in the atmosphere is driven by completely independent variables, rather than by dynamically dependent variables.
Let's move to a different example you might be more willing to hear - the common wisdom for 40 years has been that fat accumulation is caused by eating too much, and exercising too little. We dump calories in, and don't take enough calories out.
Except this isn't the case. We're complex biological machines, not heat engines, and fat accumulation is actually driven by the hormone insulin. Insulin is driven by blood sugar levels. Blood sugar levels are driven by carbohydrate intake. So, despite the fact that of course we still obey the laws of thermodynamics, it is not a reduction of calories in and increase of calories out that is informative, but rather paying attention to the drivers of insulin.
It is not only possible, it is almost certainly the case that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are moderated by numerous coupled sources and sinks, that dynamically react to perturbations of the system, regardless of source.
I'll leave this for you to think about - despite our continued CO2 emissions, increasing more and more every year, CO2 levels in the atmosphere haven't risen as expected. Called "the missing sink", we have observed over the past 100 years that rather than simply being additive to CO2 in the atmosphere, it appears that the biosphere actually dynamically reacts to changes. What it is that moderates that reaction is a completely open question.
I'll give you another one back - is the absorption effect of CO2 logarithmic? :)
Again, I think you've misunderstood the scientific method. Energy retention has existed before humans existed. While it is a *necessary* portion of your hypothesis, it is simply not sufficient. Everything you claim is true, and still does not exclude natural climate change.
So again, if you want to play the science game:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Okay, so let's play with that one - how do we weigh feeding people and supporting population with possible desertification in specific regions?
I think it would probably be better to focus on efficiency when we talk about sustainability - the more efficient we are, the more people we can support, with less per capita impact. Considering the huge beneficial impact of the industrial age, it's hard to argue that we would be better off with several billion less people and the technology of 1850.
Back to Pascal's wager :)
Since the consequence for not believing in the savior Lord Jesus Christ is eternal damnation, obviously, given the magnitude of the consequences, belief in God is the right choice :)
My trees and plants continue to thank me for the great benefit my CO2 gives them :)
They thank you for your CO2 as well :)
I think we're on even ground if that's your criteria for judgement :)
What I'm asking for is pretty well defined in the literature by Karl Popper on falsifiability, specifically regarding the demarcation problem.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
What you *seem* to be saying is that you can have an idea, and it can be right, without excluding other explanations. So, say you believe in God, and well, pretty much God can explain anything, from why you lost your keys, to why your wife cheated on you, or why the sun was shining this morning. It's a really, really good and versatile explanation.
But it's not scientific.
The key to finding the demarcation line between "scientific" and "non-scientific" is falsifiability - the two criteria I mentioned above.
What you should have asked the RF technician for is those two criteria. Walking through it, perhaps he would have hit upon the experimental ideas you thought would clearly falsify it - but the point is that these criteria must be announced a priori.
Far from being persuasive, your example with your RF technician undercuts your point - you stated, "I am claiming that someone needs to illustrate that it has no effect", just as your RF technician "demanded that I had to do the work to prove him wrong".
Now, the real question is, now that I've laid out your cognitive dissonance here, how are you going to resolve it? Will it be acceptance and reconciliation? Perhaps a word salad doubling down? Maybe moving to ad hominem?
That's *necessary*. That doesn't exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
What we're asking for is necessary and *sufficient*.
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Even an astrologer can make predictions that fall within error bars. What they haven't done is show that by their predictions hitting within the error bars, that they've excluded all other explanations.
Science is harder to do than you think it is :)
Your analogy isn't really very persuasive.
Try and build an analogy where you have $1000, and you have to decide whether or not to do a call or put option on Tesla stock today.
Do you have a foolproof model for the price of Tesla stock?
Does this model work for all other stocks?
In your opinion, what stock should we buy calls on, and what stock should we buy puts on?
If only we could agree on the definition of "pollution" :)
And even after we agreed on that, there's the question of costs and benefits - is it okay to emit one unit of "pollution" if it causes $1 of harm, and $100 of benefit?
I still remember the whole elementary school lesson on photosynthesis and respiration - it was always so amazing to me that the "pollution" of plants was actually required for animals, and vice versa.
I would consider the fiduciary duty transitive in this case, but I can certainly understand your argument that the Congress may arbitrarily behave in ways that are damaging to the taxpayers and the population at large, in full accordance with the constitution.
I would hope that our moral expectations were higher than that, of course :)
I'm happy to stipulate to the "greenhouse effect". That may very well be a necessary component of any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW.
However, it is not sufficient.
Here are your two currently possible scenarios:
1) the greenhouse effect is real, and observed global warming is natural in origin;
2) the greenhouse effect is real, and observed global warming is anthropogenic in origin.
Simply pointing to "the greenhouse effect" is non sequitur - it does not exclude natural climate change.
So again, if you want to play the science game:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
So far, you've given one observation that matches #1, but you've failed to give any argument that matches #2.
I'm not sure if it's clear what "ecologically sustainable" means in the context of an eternally changing ecological system.
I can think off the top of my head, two completely opposite interpretations:
1) behaving in such a way that the status quo is sustained eternally;
2) behaving in such a way that any human growth is sustained eternally.
My guess is that neither is possible.
Pascal's wager.
If the penalty for disbelieving God is infinite, eternal suffering, then the rational thing to do is believe in God, just in case.
Now, this means, of course, that any outlandish, incredibly minuscule chance, but extremely catastrophic result, can be used to justify things.
So, by your reasoning, are you ready to accept Lord Jesus Christ as your savior?
I'm agreeing with you as hard as I can - all of the crappy socialized costs of "renewable" energy subsidies, or farms, or ethanol, are stupid ideas.
As for history, past results do not guarantee future success :)
We live in a dynamic universe of uncertainty, and to believe that any prognostications for 10, 20, 50, or 100 years from now are any more accurate than an oil company's outlook for next quarter is hubris.
As sad as it may be, the EPA's most efficient use of resources may be dealing with acute conditions, not chronic ones. We need to start from the position that there are some wicked problems out there with great uncertainty that make the proper policy prescriptions very cloudy. Only by admitting that from the start can we work slowly, diligently, and effectively to something approximating the truth.
I guess the problem is that uncertainty is a thing, and even where we may be certain about specific bits of science, our "science" of economics is notoriously uncertain, and a straight line cannot be drawn between where we know things, like the absorption spectrum of CO2, and to a field where we obviously don't, like economics.
So even if you accept that AGW is real, significant, measurable, and unprecedented, there is no fundamental justification for believing it would be catastrophic, much less what economic policies would be the most efficient in addressing the problem (say, dramatically curtailing energy usage versus funding adaptation strategies).
I'll leave with this - I believe that if any viable economic model existed that could reliably predict the future, we would have found it by now. The entire western world is incentivized towards it, with the base greed inherent in humanity fueling its fire. But there is no possible way that we can predict what 2050 is going to look like economically, just as the people of 1968 had no possible way of predicting what the economies of 2018 would look like. Heck, we've got no reliable model of economics on *any* timescale :)
Now, to really screw with your head, compare world economics to world climate, and ask yourself which is the simpler problem to solve :)
That's an assertion, not an argument.
The whole point is that we must be judicious about our policies because it is possible, if not highly likely, that we are misjudging risk and spending large costs for marginal problems.
If you live in a world where you skip the part about actually doing the cost/benefit analysis, and assume that all policies are good and all policies will end up with a net benefit, you're going to wake up one day in a dystopia.
That's a silly reductionist position. The EPA is a government agency that has both a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers, as well as a responsibility to the well being of *citizens*. The "environment" is only a proxy here for protecting humans, and we must *obviously* take off the table those things that protect the "environment" but harm people.
Their default action should always be "what policy balances the costs and benefits for the people".
The scientific method requires starting with the foundation of a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
To wit:
1) a list of observations that would invalidate your hypothesis;
2) an argument that the lack of these observations would exclude all other hypotheses, including the null.
Having mounds of evidence "consistent with" your hypothesis is not sufficient to make it scientific - after all, astrology has mounds upon mounds of evidence and measurements. What makes a hypothesis scientific is falsifiability.
Yes, AGW would be falsified by CO2 not existing, but the mere existence of CO2 doesn't imply that AGW must be true. Same with the wavelength absorption properties of CO2 - their existence might be *necessary* for AGW to be true, but it is not *sufficient* to exclude natural (or other different man made) climate drivers.
To date, there has never been presented any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW, much less CAGW (which would at that point possibly drive policy).
A few minor niggles:
1) science, of any sort, doesn't imply any specific policy - assuming that it does is a fallacy;
2) "scientific research" must be distinguished from "sciencey research", the former requiring a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, the latter requiring only lab coats and control over the peer review process;
3) the EPA is a government organization, not a "scientific" one.
I think we're agreeing - depending on a medium's capabilities, and moreover, the most permissive use of a medium's capabilities, seems to create a situation where technology determines the principle, rather than having a principle that can be evenly applied.
The example I'd try to square the circle with is white house press briefings - does the government have the right to arbitrarily exclude unfriendly press? Can they moderate an unfriendly press at all?