Health care cannot be efficiently allocated by a free-market system. It's a total market failure.
And it's there that you lost him. Honestly, I don't know why you bother. These types bow before the free market as though it were a manifestation of the hand of god come down to save us all. You'll never convince them it's fallable because, in their mind, it simply isn't. They honestly believe that it's the solution to every problem, probably because their limited worldview prevents them from seeing its downsides.
What makes it particularly ironic is that their very icons of worship, such as Adam Smith himself, knew full well that the free market isn't perfect, nor does work in all situations. But, of course, you'd actually have to read Smith to realize that.
Just imagine how much easier it would be if we simply paid cash,
Yeah! And imagine how much less crowded hospitals and ERs would be... all those pesky poor people no longer clogging up the system, demanding "care", "attention", and "surgical procedures" for their "illnesses". So much better for we superior rich folk, eh?
That's not entirely true. Yes, the health risks and benefits of Cannabis are still under debate, but so far, it has been proven that the substance can affect you both positively and negatively, and I wouldn't say the positive effects outweigh the negative effects (especially considering that there may be a link between pot smoking and various mental illnesses).
"May" be a link. So, you'd rather put people in jail, just in case of a hypothetical link? As opposed to, say, relying on education so people can make their own informed decisions?
Well, this is a matter of personal experience then I guess. The Cannabis users I know keep talking about how cool it is constantly and try to make social events out of their consumption sessions.
Now that's a far *far* cry from randomly handing out pot to people and trying to seduce them into using it. In fact, that sounds like good ol', run-of-the-mill peer pressure. You know, the kind your mom and dad warned you about, that's been going on for a very *very* long time now. Hardly anything to worry about.
If you'd legalize Marijuana, more and more people would start using it, as it's much more easily available
False. Once again, one need only look at Amsterdam to see what would happen. Here's a study on the topic. In case you don't feel like reading it, the conclusion is simple: rates consumption rates would probably remain the same.
Marijuana would soon become similar to Alcohol - "a little bit now and then, that's all ok, especially on social events".
Wait... how is that a bad thing, again?
but then, I also met people who are not, people who do not just use, but abuse Cannabis.
So, you'd prefer damaging, discriminatory laws, in order to protect a minority of people who might have a problem? Do you also support alcohol, tobacco, and gambling prohibition?
But as long as our society cannot even solve all the problems alcohol and cigarettes cause, I don't think we should legalize another drug.
Those problems will never be solved. But why create a whole raft of *new* problems, such as organized crime and so forth, as well? I mean, the lessons of prohibition seem pretty clear: it doesn't reduce consumption rates, it creates more problems than it solves, and in the end, it just ain't worth it.
I am just taking the argument made by the GPP and applying it to things other people like to do that are against the law.
No, you're not. Drug use is a victimless crime (well, okay, marijuana plants are killed to feed the demand... poor things). Last I checked, child rape was not.
But, let's face it, in reality, you're just trolling, right? I mean, you really aren't so dumb that you don't realize how stupid your analogy is, are you?
Is it your argument that your will and the will of a minority should take precedence over the majority?
Is it your argument that the reverse should be true? Well god damn, man, that whole anti-slavery thing must *really* piss you off!
Then decriminalize possession, or make people *using* the drug do a few days of public service. I agree that there's no need to throw them into jail (which is actually quite contraproductive), but they certainly should be discouraged from using Marijuana.
Umm... why? It's completely harmless. As in, unless you're smoking huge amounts of the stuff every day, it has essentially no negative health consequences (particularly if consumed using a water pipe or vaporizer).
They will spread their habit, be it through encouraging others or even handing around samples.
No... they don't. I don't know a single, solitary pot user who goes out of their way to try and rope in other people. And they *definitely* don't walk around handing out pot to people... it's too damned expensive!
Methinks you've watched too many after school specials.
The public image slowly shifts towards "taking (soft) drugs is okay", and this is (at least in my opinion) a quite dangerous thing. Slippery slope.
Bah, the public image toward drugs isn't going to change simply because the laws change. Alcohol abuse, while perfectly legal, is stigmatized, as is cigarette consumption, pain killer abuse, and so forth. What makes you think that legalizing pot would suddenly change societal morays when the existence of any number of other legal drugs has not?
Tomorrow, it's Marijuana, which might probably overall be less harmful than aforementioned drugs, but will give people dangerous ideas - ideas which may lead them to consuming other not-quite-as-harmless drugs.
So you don't trust people to make their own decisions regarding drug consumption? Sounds to me like you might have self-control issues. I mean, speaking for myself, I've never felt compelled to move on to harder drugs, nor have any of my pot-using friends.
Quite honestly, and don't take this the wrong way, but... you just sound incredibly naive. Marijuana isn't a gateway drug (again, just ask those in Amsterdam). It won't cause your brain to melt or your penis to whither. It won't destroy your motivation or your memory. It's just another intoxicant in a vast array of intoxicants that humans use (and abuse) every single day, and compared to the average drug (alcohol, tobacco, oxycontin, etc), incredibly benign as well.
2, with one of them raped by an addict. The other had his house broken into.
Well, you have my sympathies. Now ask yourself how many people you know have been victims of alcohol-related incidents?
Nothing's sadder than seeing a poor woman having a crack baby
Or a kid with FAS.
Everyone's got a tragedy. Just seems like the one from hard drugs continues to come up worse to me.
Only because alcohol-related incidents are so common they barely show up on the radar these days. Spousal and child abuse, rape, car accidents... alcohol is a causative factor in an enormous number of crimes every year. But we accept it because the alternative (prohibition) is far worse, as the US learned the hard way.
I'm not saying alcohol is a magic happy thing that doesn't hurt anyone. But are you saying alcohol is the same as crack or crystal meth in terms of societal effects?
No. I'm saying it's worse. Far more people, every year, are killed by drunk drivers, beaten by drunk husbands or fathers, or attacked by drunk bar patrons.
Meanwhile, how many people do you know have actually been the victim of drug-related crime? My bet is not that many.
Aren't alcohol and cigarettes alone not already enough of a problem? I'm not saying Marijuana intoxication is worse than Alcohol intoxication, but frankly said, I don't think we need more stuff that allows people getting high on it at all. We've got more than enough troubles, do we need another drug causing them?
Given the problems caused by criminalization (organized crime, high prison population rates, issues with tainted drugs, etc), the question you should be asking is, is this theoretical harm you're worried about worse than the harm currently being caused by criminalization. Given the experiences in Amsterdam, I'd say the answer is almost certainly "no".
So if the end result is an overall decrease in harm, why *wouldn't* you support decriminalization?
And as an aside, why are you so afraid of people "getting high"? If they aren't harming anyone (and your average pot user is entirely harmless), who are you to judge?
You might even learn how marijuana use causes memory loss and cognitive problems. In other words, stoners forget things and can't think straight. I am sure the propaganda sites you were on didn't mention those.
Because alcohol is harmless when abused over the long term in large quantities? Please.
Oh, and marijuana does kill people, just like alcohol kills many people by impairing the users who then drive or do something else stupid.
Exactly. So you want to ban alcohol, then? Yes, that worked so well in the past...
It also kills and injures people out hiking when they step on booby traps set up by growers
Which wouldn't happen if it was legal.
when mules and dealers decide to run from the cops
Which wouldn't happen if it was legal.
and when users decide to rob people to get some cash for more pot.
Which wouldn't happen if it was legal (prices are significantly marked up due to artificial scarcity, thanks to it's currently illegal status). 'course, I also strongly dispute the idea that pot smokers are out there robbing people for drug money... harder, addictive drugs (like alcohol), sure, but pot? I seriously doubt it.
So... what point were you trying to make, again? Because, at first blush, it looks to me like you support decriminalization/legalization.
But maybe we should distinguish between pot and more mind-bending, addictive drugs.
Why? Alcohol is a more mind-bending, addictive drug, and yet I don't see calls to ban it.
From what I can tell, not only do some people act much more dangerous when high on them than not, but more worrying is what addicts will do to get them.
Just like alcohol.
I'm really concerned that if we legalize things like crack, without also giving people as much as they want, we'll continue to see problems like prostitution and robbery stemming from addicts' desperation for cash.
Just like alcohol.
So I'm not sure legalizing these kinds of drugs would be a net gain (or loss) for society.
All you need to do is look at prohibition to see what will happen: reduction in organized crime and inner city violence, decreased deaths due to use of tainted drugs, increased availability of rehab programs to help the addicted deal with their problem.
Your mistake is in believing that, if these drugs are legalized, suddenly the number of people using them would go up. One need only look at the experiment in Amsterdam to see that isn't the case. After all, the stigma of using those drugs won't go away, and if you're willing to ignore said stigma to use them after their legalized, odds are you would've used them before they were legalized (it's not like they're tough to find).
No, it is their job to represent their clients, not to be friendly to them.
Apparently you don't understand the use of the term "friend" in the GGP's post. Here, let's review:
Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..
When employeed by the RIAA ofc they are going to be aggressive to earn their keep.
When employed by DoJ they don't care about the RIAA the govenment is paying them so they do what the government wants and if the govenment doesnt care they use their own views.
Now, consider, the term "friend" can mean "buddy" or "pal", or it can simply mean "on your side". eg, "Canada is a friend to the United States."
Now, which definition do you think the GGP intended to use?
This is a tautology. If they aren't educated, they aren't prepared.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. The word "prepared" can mean "equipped", but it can also mean "ready". ie, "I'm not prepared, at this point, to listen to your confused ramblings."
Most people are prepared to formulate a number of educated opinions.
No, they aren't, otherwise your average pop sci article wouldn't exist. Most people are prepared, as in ready, to formulate opinions. But educated ones? I think not. Educated opinions require an open mind and significant cognitive effort to cultivate, and your average person is most certainly *not* prepared for that.
you are asserting a grabbag of disconnected notions
Disconnected only based on your, apparently confused, reading.
I posted to a mailing list, you replied to my post presumably to seek a conversation. I conversed.
Yeah, I realize that. I'm simply unable to grasp what you were trying to say. To be quite honest, in retrospect, I'm not sure you were actually saying anything at all...
To be quite frank, I have no idea what you're arguing. You've broken down my post into a series of disconnected fragments, thereby discarding their context, then proceeded to... I don't know... apparently attempt to "disprove" each of them individually, while doing an excellent job of demonstrating that old saw of "missing the forest for the trees". Meanwhile, your post seems to lack even the most basic coherence, and frankly appears to simply be a series of straw men that you felt like knocking down for kicks.
I mean, let's go over this:
This is just Sturgeon's law. It is also the definition of "average". The average person doesn't give a rat's ass about any topic you want to name. It has nothing to do with highbrow notions of philosophy.
And here you've clearly missed the point. My point isn't that "99% of people don't care about a given topic". It's that, given a topic people *are* interested in, like, say, evolution, 99% of people's eyes will glaze over if you attempt to actually explain to them in sufficient detail the mechanisms behind the theory. But without that detail, they can be easily duped by a slanted "summary" explanation (eg: "humans came from goo").
I doubt that. Given enough words (and a few pictures) you can explain arbitrarily complex expressions of concepts that our brains have evolved to handle.
Yes... way to take me far too literally while attempting to defeat a point I never tried to make.
most readers aren't interested in hearing the full explanation
and you can fool most of the people most of the time...
So what was your point, other than to take the opportunity to parrot a worn-out cliche?
They're fine with a glossed over version
As are we all for various purposes under various conditions at various times.
And your point here was... what? Yes, sometimes a summary is useful. For example, if you're interested in getting a broad overview of a topic. But if your goal is to formulate an actual opinion, then it's important to get the details. Again, the problem is, most people aren't prepared to formulate an educated opinion, and so they can fall victim to the very pop science the article was maligning.
to the point of being a flat out lie... and they won't be able to tell
The big lie! But then, they would accept the big truth, too. The issue is perhaps that our public communication channels require no referees, no peer review.
Again, your point? Yes, referees would be nice, but that ain't gonna happen, so...
Worse, they may believe themselves sufficiently knowledgeable to detect a false explanation when, in fact, they aren't.
And this was the link back to the other blog entry. Perhaps we should require all students to have a subscription to the Skeptical Inquirer.
Sounds like a fine idea. But I'm once again missing the thrust of your argument... assuming you're making one.
Studying math and specializing in it is a safe bet to gain most general knowledge that is still applicable to wide array of scientific fields, and that would allow you to follow quite a bit of science.
And it would also put you head and shoulders above your average layman, which is who this article is discussing.
This is particularly true in applications (i.e. programming) where this cycle of write code to implement some functionality, compile, run to test if it works, modify code again etc. is how we really work.
Wow... if that's how you code, I fear for your employer. I mean, I don't know about you, but when I write a piece of code it's not an *hypothesis*.
Take abortion for example. The real question is "When do we get a soul?"
Sure, let's pretend that's the question. So, good for you, you just stated it.
Now what?
The article isn't about how hard it is to state the question. Hell, that's relatively easy, presuming you can get everyone to agree. The article is about how hard it is to debate the question and come to a conclusion. Because debating the question is precisely the act of applying it "to the real world", as you put it.
Let's take another example: the origin of species on earth. The question itself is dead simple to state: "Was life on earth created, or did it evolve?" But debating that question requires understanding basic biology, including natural selection and genetics, as well as a grasp of fundamental mathematics and statistics. And that's Sanchez's whole point. If you really want to hold an *informed* opinion about a topic, you need to understand it in depth. And that depth can be so extensive that your average reader will simply be overwhelmed by the detail. Meanwhile, if someone comes along and gives them a nice, glossed over version that *sounds* right, then they'll happily internalize it, even if it's wrong.
And this brings us back to your original statement: that you disagree that "anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about." And my answer to you is that, no, you're wrong. You believe that holding an *opinion* is something a layman can do. Great. You're absolutely right, anyone can hold an opinion. Hell, they may even know how to phrase the question properly. But actually *arguing* their position while actually understanding the issues at hand? Sorry, that's something else entirely.
Sure. But if you need to explain a dozen concepts before you get to the topic at hand, you've just lost 99% of average readers, because they just don't care enough to truly understand the issue. That's why echo chambers exist in the first place.
You are implicitly asserting an inappropriate application of the principle of math induction - that no fact can be communicated in one word, therefore that no fact can be communicated in two or ten or hundred words
Not at all. In fact, precisely the contrary. Of course, given enough words, you can explain any concept. But, as Sanchez points out, most readers aren't interested in hearing the full explanation. They're fine with a glossed over version that, in all probability, is distorted, possibly to the point of being a flat out lie... and they won't be able to tell, because they don't have sufficient knowledge in the subject to realize it's a lie. Worse, they may believe themselves sufficiently knowledgeable to detect a false explanation when, in fact, they aren't.
Ohm's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school (high school or college) with 19th century instruments.
I think you've just disproved your own point. First off, if I need any instruments to explain Ohm's law, then I certainly can't explain it in the course of an average blog post.
Second, your average freshman is *not* the same as your average joe public. The latter probably doesn't understand even the most basic concepts regarding electricity, let alone something like Ohm's law. Problem is, you can't see that because, to you, it seems like extremely basic knowledge... which is why arguments by experts on the details of a field are doomed to failure - you inevitably make assumptions regarding basic knowledge level of the listener, assumptions that are, in all probability, wrong.
Much of science is immediately graspable and usable with a brief explanation from a good teacher. It is the aggregate that is a challenge to fathom - the aggregate and the startling quantum and relativistic foundations underneath it all. These are true mysteries.
Exactly. Which is why explaining, say, Evolution, or AGW to someone, particularly someone with an already built-in bias, is doomed to failure (on average). These concepts, like so many others, require a basic grasp of mathematics and statistics, and fundamental concepts in science that, for many people, are beyond conception. Hell, just trying to get people to understand the vastness of time, when considering evolution, is virtually impossible, let alone its mathematical and statistical underpinnings.
So, no, this isn't just a problem in philosophy. It's a problem with any complex concept that, to truly understand it, requires understanding on a large number of first principles that, themselves, may be difficult to grasp. And that characterizes modern science, mathematics, and, as you point out, philosophy as well.
As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials (pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances, layman or not), the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism (really more a kind of paternalism) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time.
Well, while that's a lovely sentiment, it doesn't actually qualify as a counterargument. Would you care to actually provide one?
Sanchez's hidden assumption that cloistered academics would naturally make the better leaders or judges in arguments is as ultimately deluded as Plato's contention that only philosophers are suited to be kings.
Funny, I don't see how he actually said that (although, I like how you assume all academics are "cloistered"... bigoted much?). He simple put forth the following:
The less educated in a subject you are, the more likely you are to over-estimate your knowledge in that subject area. Combine that with his one-way hash argument (that it's easy to manipulate someone when explaining a complex concept, because truly explaining said concept would require a level of knowledge and detail that's impenetrable to the layman), and it's clear that a layman can be very easily duped.
Therefore, a new type of discussion is needed, one where, rather than arguing a solution to a problem, you discuss all the issues underpinning the problem, and why selecting a solution is hard, thus disabusing said layman of their notion that they are, in fact, educated in the subject area. That way, the layman may be less easy to dupe, as they will be more aware of their own ignorance.
Actually, he does address that point, but primarily in his "one-way hash" article, wherein he brushes across the issue of online echo chambers... which is precisely what you're describing.
Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..
"known to be"? Jebus, that's their fucking job!
Re:Why only one database language?
on
SQL in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 1
What's hard to build is efficient storage engines and query optimizers, not query languages, but once those are built, the language you express the queries in shouldn't matter much as long as the what is expressible is the same.
I disagree. Existing query optimization and execution engines are built with the capabilities and constructs of SQL in mind. A new query language, on the other hand, presumably exists to enable things which existing languages (like SQL) don't... otherwise, why would you bother? So, given that, it's very likely that the language would require new, novel technologies for optimization and implementation... and those things ain't easy to get right.
That said, your point about marketshare is a good one. SQL is well-integrated into many, many languages. Introducing yet another language faces huge barriers to entry, both technological and sociological.
Re:Why only one database language?
on
SQL in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Creating a new query language is *hard*.
I mean, I can sit down and create a new programming language fairly easily. Hell, most computing science students write a compiler at some point during education. But a new query language? That requires a DB engine, a query optimizer, and who knows what else. All to replace a language that, thus far, has worked exceedingly well.
That said, as another poster points out, there are other languages out there, XPath being the most notable (CSS selectors also come to mind). But none of them are as clear, simple, and straightforward as good ol' SQL, which, I think, says something about its design.
Slashdot Mirror
Health care cannot be efficiently allocated by a free-market system. It's a total market failure.
And it's there that you lost him. Honestly, I don't know why you bother. These types bow before the free market as though it were a manifestation of the hand of god come down to save us all. You'll never convince them it's fallable because, in their mind, it simply isn't. They honestly believe that it's the solution to every problem, probably because their limited worldview prevents them from seeing its downsides.
What makes it particularly ironic is that their very icons of worship, such as Adam Smith himself, knew full well that the free market isn't perfect, nor does work in all situations. But, of course, you'd actually have to read Smith to realize that.
Just imagine how much easier it would be if we simply paid cash,
Yeah! And imagine how much less crowded hospitals and ERs would be... all those pesky poor people no longer clogging up the system, demanding "care", "attention", and "surgical procedures" for their "illnesses". So much better for we superior rich folk, eh?
You mean like the native widgets Firefox supports as of version 3?
That's not entirely true. Yes, the health risks and benefits of Cannabis are still under debate, but so far, it has been proven that the substance can affect you both positively and negatively, and I wouldn't say the positive effects outweigh the negative effects (especially considering that there may be a link between pot smoking and various mental illnesses).
"May" be a link. So, you'd rather put people in jail, just in case of a hypothetical link? As opposed to, say, relying on education so people can make their own informed decisions?
Well, this is a matter of personal experience then I guess. The Cannabis users I know keep talking about how cool it is constantly and try to make social events out of their consumption sessions.
Now that's a far *far* cry from randomly handing out pot to people and trying to seduce them into using it. In fact, that sounds like good ol', run-of-the-mill peer pressure. You know, the kind your mom and dad warned you about, that's been going on for a very *very* long time now. Hardly anything to worry about.
If you'd legalize Marijuana, more and more people would start using it, as it's much more easily available
False. Once again, one need only look at Amsterdam to see what would happen. Here's a study on the topic. In case you don't feel like reading it, the conclusion is simple: rates consumption rates would probably remain the same.
Marijuana would soon become similar to Alcohol - "a little bit now and then, that's all ok, especially on social events".
Wait... how is that a bad thing, again?
but then, I also met people who are not, people who do not just use, but abuse Cannabis.
So, you'd prefer damaging, discriminatory laws, in order to protect a minority of people who might have a problem? Do you also support alcohol, tobacco, and gambling prohibition?
But as long as our society cannot even solve all the problems alcohol and cigarettes cause, I don't think we should legalize another drug.
Those problems will never be solved. But why create a whole raft of *new* problems, such as organized crime and so forth, as well? I mean, the lessons of prohibition seem pretty clear: it doesn't reduce consumption rates, it creates more problems than it solves, and in the end, it just ain't worth it.
I see, so you do believe that the will of the many should be subjugated to the will of the few or one. Nice to know that, asshole.
In some cases, yes. Have you never heard of the term "tyranny of the majority"? Hell, have you never heard of your own bill of rights?
If slavery was the will of the majority, it would never have been outlawed. Your argument fails, dumbass.
So, if slavery is the will of the majority, it should be reinstated? Wow... and you call me the asshole...
I am just taking the argument made by the GPP and applying it to things other people like to do that are against the law.
No, you're not. Drug use is a victimless crime (well, okay, marijuana plants are killed to feed the demand... poor things). Last I checked, child rape was not.
But, let's face it, in reality, you're just trolling, right? I mean, you really aren't so dumb that you don't realize how stupid your analogy is, are you?
Is it your argument that your will and the will of a minority should take precedence over the majority?
Is it your argument that the reverse should be true? Well god damn, man, that whole anti-slavery thing must *really* piss you off!
Then decriminalize possession, or make people *using* the drug do a few days of public service. I agree that there's no need to throw them into jail (which is actually quite contraproductive), but they certainly should be discouraged from using Marijuana.
Umm... why? It's completely harmless. As in, unless you're smoking huge amounts of the stuff every day, it has essentially no negative health consequences (particularly if consumed using a water pipe or vaporizer).
They will spread their habit, be it through encouraging others or even handing around samples.
No... they don't. I don't know a single, solitary pot user who goes out of their way to try and rope in other people. And they *definitely* don't walk around handing out pot to people... it's too damned expensive!
Methinks you've watched too many after school specials.
The public image slowly shifts towards "taking (soft) drugs is okay", and this is (at least in my opinion) a quite dangerous thing. Slippery slope.
Bah, the public image toward drugs isn't going to change simply because the laws change. Alcohol abuse, while perfectly legal, is stigmatized, as is cigarette consumption, pain killer abuse, and so forth. What makes you think that legalizing pot would suddenly change societal morays when the existence of any number of other legal drugs has not?
Tomorrow, it's Marijuana, which might probably overall be less harmful than aforementioned drugs, but will give people dangerous ideas - ideas which may lead them to consuming other not-quite-as-harmless drugs.
So you don't trust people to make their own decisions regarding drug consumption? Sounds to me like you might have self-control issues. I mean, speaking for myself, I've never felt compelled to move on to harder drugs, nor have any of my pot-using friends.
Quite honestly, and don't take this the wrong way, but... you just sound incredibly naive. Marijuana isn't a gateway drug (again, just ask those in Amsterdam). It won't cause your brain to melt or your penis to whither. It won't destroy your motivation or your memory. It's just another intoxicant in a vast array of intoxicants that humans use (and abuse) every single day, and compared to the average drug (alcohol, tobacco, oxycontin, etc), incredibly benign as well.
2, with one of them raped by an addict. The other had his house broken into.
Well, you have my sympathies. Now ask yourself how many people you know have been victims of alcohol-related incidents?
Nothing's sadder than seeing a poor woman having a crack baby
Or a kid with FAS.
Everyone's got a tragedy. Just seems like the one from hard drugs continues to come up worse to me.
Only because alcohol-related incidents are so common they barely show up on the radar these days. Spousal and child abuse, rape, car accidents... alcohol is a causative factor in an enormous number of crimes every year. But we accept it because the alternative (prohibition) is far worse, as the US learned the hard way.
I'm not saying alcohol is a magic happy thing that doesn't hurt anyone. But are you saying alcohol is the same as crack or crystal meth in terms of societal effects?
No. I'm saying it's worse. Far more people, every year, are killed by drunk drivers, beaten by drunk husbands or fathers, or attacked by drunk bar patrons.
Meanwhile, how many people do you know have actually been the victim of drug-related crime? My bet is not that many.
Aren't alcohol and cigarettes alone not already enough of a problem? I'm not saying Marijuana intoxication is worse than Alcohol intoxication, but frankly said, I don't think we need more stuff that allows people getting high on it at all. We've got more than enough troubles, do we need another drug causing them?
Given the problems caused by criminalization (organized crime, high prison population rates, issues with tainted drugs, etc), the question you should be asking is, is this theoretical harm you're worried about worse than the harm currently being caused by criminalization. Given the experiences in Amsterdam, I'd say the answer is almost certainly "no".
So if the end result is an overall decrease in harm, why *wouldn't* you support decriminalization?
And as an aside, why are you so afraid of people "getting high"? If they aren't harming anyone (and your average pot user is entirely harmless), who are you to judge?
You might even learn how marijuana use causes memory loss and cognitive problems. In other words, stoners forget things and can't think straight. I am sure the propaganda sites you were on didn't mention those.
Because alcohol is harmless when abused over the long term in large quantities? Please.
Oh, and marijuana does kill people, just like alcohol kills many people by impairing the users who then drive or do something else stupid.
Exactly. So you want to ban alcohol, then? Yes, that worked so well in the past...
It also kills and injures people out hiking when they step on booby traps set up by growers
Which wouldn't happen if it was legal.
when mules and dealers decide to run from the cops
Which wouldn't happen if it was legal.
and when users decide to rob people to get some cash for more pot.
Which wouldn't happen if it was legal (prices are significantly marked up due to artificial scarcity, thanks to it's currently illegal status). 'course, I also strongly dispute the idea that pot smokers are out there robbing people for drug money... harder, addictive drugs (like alcohol), sure, but pot? I seriously doubt it.
So... what point were you trying to make, again? Because, at first blush, it looks to me like you support decriminalization/legalization.
But maybe we should distinguish between pot and more mind-bending, addictive drugs.
Why? Alcohol is a more mind-bending, addictive drug, and yet I don't see calls to ban it.
From what I can tell, not only do some people act much more dangerous when high on them than not, but more worrying is what addicts will do to get them.
Just like alcohol.
I'm really concerned that if we legalize things like crack, without also giving people as much as they want, we'll continue to see problems like prostitution and robbery stemming from addicts' desperation for cash.
Just like alcohol.
So I'm not sure legalizing these kinds of drugs would be a net gain (or loss) for society.
All you need to do is look at prohibition to see what will happen: reduction in organized crime and inner city violence, decreased deaths due to use of tainted drugs, increased availability of rehab programs to help the addicted deal with their problem.
Your mistake is in believing that, if these drugs are legalized, suddenly the number of people using them would go up. One need only look at the experiment in Amsterdam to see that isn't the case. After all, the stigma of using those drugs won't go away, and if you're willing to ignore said stigma to use them after their legalized, odds are you would've used them before they were legalized (it's not like they're tough to find).
No, it is their job to represent their clients, not to be friendly to them.
Apparently you don't understand the use of the term "friend" in the GGP's post. Here, let's review:
Now, consider, the term "friend" can mean "buddy" or "pal", or it can simply mean "on your side". eg, "Canada is a friend to the United States."
Now, which definition do you think the GGP intended to use?
This is a tautology. If they aren't educated, they aren't prepared.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. The word "prepared" can mean "equipped", but it can also mean "ready". ie, "I'm not prepared, at this point, to listen to your confused ramblings."
Most people are prepared to formulate a number of educated opinions.
No, they aren't, otherwise your average pop sci article wouldn't exist. Most people are prepared, as in ready, to formulate opinions. But educated ones? I think not. Educated opinions require an open mind and significant cognitive effort to cultivate, and your average person is most certainly *not* prepared for that.
you are asserting a grabbag of disconnected notions
Disconnected only based on your, apparently confused, reading.
I posted to a mailing list, you replied to my post presumably to seek a conversation. I conversed.
Yeah, I realize that. I'm simply unable to grasp what you were trying to say. To be quite honest, in retrospect, I'm not sure you were actually saying anything at all...
To be quite frank, I have no idea what you're arguing. You've broken down my post into a series of disconnected fragments, thereby discarding their context, then proceeded to... I don't know... apparently attempt to "disprove" each of them individually, while doing an excellent job of demonstrating that old saw of "missing the forest for the trees". Meanwhile, your post seems to lack even the most basic coherence, and frankly appears to simply be a series of straw men that you felt like knocking down for kicks.
I mean, let's go over this:
And here you've clearly missed the point. My point isn't that "99% of people don't care about a given topic". It's that, given a topic people *are* interested in, like, say, evolution, 99% of people's eyes will glaze over if you attempt to actually explain to them in sufficient detail the mechanisms behind the theory. But without that detail, they can be easily duped by a slanted "summary" explanation (eg: "humans came from goo").
Yes... way to take me far too literally while attempting to defeat a point I never tried to make.
So what was your point, other than to take the opportunity to parrot a worn-out cliche?
And your point here was... what? Yes, sometimes a summary is useful. For example, if you're interested in getting a broad overview of a topic. But if your goal is to formulate an actual opinion, then it's important to get the details. Again, the problem is, most people aren't prepared to formulate an educated opinion, and so they can fall victim to the very pop science the article was maligning.
Again, your point? Yes, referees would be nice, but that ain't gonna happen, so...
Sounds like a fine idea. But I'm once again missing the thrust of your argument... assuming you're making one.
Studying math and specializing in it is a safe bet to gain most general knowledge that is still applicable to wide array of scientific fields, and that would allow you to follow quite a bit of science.
And it would also put you head and shoulders above your average layman, which is who this article is discussing.
Nice strawman, though. :)
This is particularly true in applications (i.e. programming) where this cycle of write code to implement some functionality, compile, run to test if it works, modify code again etc. is how we really work.
Wow... if that's how you code, I fear for your employer. I mean, I don't know about you, but when I write a piece of code it's not an *hypothesis*.
Take abortion for example. The real question is "When do we get a soul?"
Sure, let's pretend that's the question. So, good for you, you just stated it.
Now what?
The article isn't about how hard it is to state the question. Hell, that's relatively easy, presuming you can get everyone to agree. The article is about how hard it is to debate the question and come to a conclusion. Because debating the question is precisely the act of applying it "to the real world", as you put it.
Let's take another example: the origin of species on earth. The question itself is dead simple to state: "Was life on earth created, or did it evolve?" But debating that question requires understanding basic biology, including natural selection and genetics, as well as a grasp of fundamental mathematics and statistics. And that's Sanchez's whole point. If you really want to hold an *informed* opinion about a topic, you need to understand it in depth. And that depth can be so extensive that your average reader will simply be overwhelmed by the detail. Meanwhile, if someone comes along and gives them a nice, glossed over version that *sounds* right, then they'll happily internalize it, even if it's wrong.
And this brings us back to your original statement: that you disagree that "anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about." And my answer to you is that, no, you're wrong. You believe that holding an *opinion* is something a layman can do. Great. You're absolutely right, anyone can hold an opinion. Hell, they may even know how to phrase the question properly. But actually *arguing* their position while actually understanding the issues at hand? Sorry, that's something else entirely.
Except that science is intrinsically incremental.
Sure. But if you need to explain a dozen concepts before you get to the topic at hand, you've just lost 99% of average readers, because they just don't care enough to truly understand the issue. That's why echo chambers exist in the first place.
You are implicitly asserting an inappropriate application of the principle of math induction - that no fact can be communicated in one word, therefore that no fact can be communicated in two or ten or hundred words
Not at all. In fact, precisely the contrary. Of course, given enough words, you can explain any concept. But, as Sanchez points out, most readers aren't interested in hearing the full explanation. They're fine with a glossed over version that, in all probability, is distorted, possibly to the point of being a flat out lie... and they won't be able to tell, because they don't have sufficient knowledge in the subject to realize it's a lie. Worse, they may believe themselves sufficiently knowledgeable to detect a false explanation when, in fact, they aren't.
Ohm's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school (high school or college) with 19th century instruments.
I think you've just disproved your own point. First off, if I need any instruments to explain Ohm's law, then I certainly can't explain it in the course of an average blog post.
Second, your average freshman is *not* the same as your average joe public. The latter probably doesn't understand even the most basic concepts regarding electricity, let alone something like Ohm's law. Problem is, you can't see that because, to you, it seems like extremely basic knowledge... which is why arguments by experts on the details of a field are doomed to failure - you inevitably make assumptions regarding basic knowledge level of the listener, assumptions that are, in all probability, wrong.
Much of science is immediately graspable and usable with a brief explanation from a good teacher. It is the aggregate that is a challenge to fathom - the aggregate and the startling quantum and relativistic foundations underneath it all. These are true mysteries.
Exactly. Which is why explaining, say, Evolution, or AGW to someone, particularly someone with an already built-in bias, is doomed to failure (on average). These concepts, like so many others, require a basic grasp of mathematics and statistics, and fundamental concepts in science that, for many people, are beyond conception. Hell, just trying to get people to understand the vastness of time, when considering evolution, is virtually impossible, let alone its mathematical and statistical underpinnings.
So, no, this isn't just a problem in philosophy. It's a problem with any complex concept that, to truly understand it, requires understanding on a large number of first principles that, themselves, may be difficult to grasp. And that characterizes modern science, mathematics, and, as you point out, philosophy as well.
As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials (pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances, layman or not), the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism (really more a kind of paternalism) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time.
Well, while that's a lovely sentiment, it doesn't actually qualify as a counterargument. Would you care to actually provide one?
Sanchez's hidden assumption that cloistered academics would naturally make the better leaders or judges in arguments is as ultimately deluded as Plato's contention that only philosophers are suited to be kings.
Funny, I don't see how he actually said that (although, I like how you assume all academics are "cloistered"... bigoted much?). He simple put forth the following:
The less educated in a subject you are, the more likely you are to over-estimate your knowledge in that subject area. Combine that with his one-way hash argument (that it's easy to manipulate someone when explaining a complex concept, because truly explaining said concept would require a level of knowledge and detail that's impenetrable to the layman), and it's clear that a layman can be very easily duped.
Therefore, a new type of discussion is needed, one where, rather than arguing a solution to a problem, you discuss all the issues underpinning the problem, and why selecting a solution is hard, thus disabusing said layman of their notion that they are, in fact, educated in the subject area. That way, the layman may be less easy to dupe, as they will be more aware of their own ignorance.
Actually, he does address that point, but primarily in his "one-way hash" article, wherein he brushes across the issue of online echo chambers... which is precisely what you're describing.
Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..
"known to be"? Jebus, that's their fucking job!
What's hard to build is efficient storage engines and query optimizers, not query languages, but once those are built, the language you express the queries in shouldn't matter much as long as the what is expressible is the same.
I disagree. Existing query optimization and execution engines are built with the capabilities and constructs of SQL in mind. A new query language, on the other hand, presumably exists to enable things which existing languages (like SQL) don't... otherwise, why would you bother? So, given that, it's very likely that the language would require new, novel technologies for optimization and implementation... and those things ain't easy to get right.
That said, your point about marketshare is a good one. SQL is well-integrated into many, many languages. Introducing yet another language faces huge barriers to entry, both technological and sociological.
Creating a new query language is *hard*.
I mean, I can sit down and create a new programming language fairly easily. Hell, most computing science students write a compiler at some point during education. But a new query language? That requires a DB engine, a query optimizer, and who knows what else. All to replace a language that, thus far, has worked exceedingly well.
That said, as another poster points out, there are other languages out there, XPath being the most notable (CSS selectors also come to mind). But none of them are as clear, simple, and straightforward as good ol' SQL, which, I think, says something about its design.