Fundamentally at stake, the critics say, is the social contract that cultivates science for the common good
The critics are probably lamenting a reduction in their funding, as Marxist shills often do when they're getting less from the long suffering tax payer. The Golden Rule here is to always invoke the "common good", as long as you don't tell people that you'll decide what the common good actually is, not the people paying the taxes.
I wish the authors of studies like these and those at NASA who commission them would read Popper's The Poverty of Historicism. It would save them a lot of time, effort and the possibility they'll make gigantic fools of themselves.
Yes, socialism works very well indeed until the money runs out, which it inevitably does and will in Norway's case as well. To say Norway is doing splendidly well because it's ploughing through its savings, compared to other countries, is to miss the point.
First, the oil fund is a mathematical artifice. At three-quarters of a trillion dollars, the Norwegian Oil Fund appears to provide plenty for a country with scarcely 5 million citizens. Yet the country has accumulated a foreign debt that, at $657 billion, is almost as massive. Subtracting the debt from the fund’s $740 billion leaves a balance of only $83 billion. In other words, there is a treasure chest, but it is almost empty: Njord’s prize for future generations is only a little more than 10 percent of its putative value.
Socialists are very good at spending other people's money, aren't they edjs.
Why don't you give some examples of countries that are successful economically that don't enjoy the fruits of economic liberalism? I realised Marx' ideas were asinine by the age of around 13. Why didn't you?
Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society.
It was a Conservative government that declared war on Hitler, a Conservative Prime Minister who ran the campaign and a Conservative Prime Minister who helped end the Cold War. Did the Left contribute much to these victories? I mean apart from supplying a steady stream of useful idiots for CND and the Soviets post 1945.
What a moronic comment. Her `unworkable ideology' has been the centre ground of British politics since around 1986. Even the Labour party dropped it's idiotic "ownership of the means of production" rubbish under Blair and nobody on the left, apart from the usual loons, are arguing to bring it back.
If you want to see what a post neo-liberal political ideology looks like, go to a shop in Venezuela.
Actually, the Labour governments before her shut down more mines than she ever did; a considerable number more. But don't let the facts spoil a good fantasy. If anything destroyed the miners it was union militancy; the useful idiots of the left who allied themselves with Soviet Russia.
Why are you even talking about age of consent? It's not up to the child. It's not up to the State. It's up to the parents. We aren't talking actually doing physical or psychological harm to the child. Unless you really consider it to be that, in which case, again, I would accuse you of argumentum ad think-of-the-children.
One thing I've learned over the years is to live and let live. If believing in a big Sky Fairy is comforting to people in a way that believing, say, that Newton's inverse square law for gravity, then that's fine. The only thing I ask is that you don't insist I believe it too. The latter is, ironically, precisely what you're wishing to impose on other people's children.
That is why your ideas here are illiberal and this illiberality is merely the thin end of the wedge.
Peer-reviewed publication is how scientists communicate with each other and keep track of errors
Depends on the field. It would be better if papers were more readily retracted when wrong. And peer review itself is a kind of group-think that sets the bar very high for hypothesis that go against the paradigm and prevents publication, for very Human reasons, of contrary analysis and opinion. Peer review isn't in itself all that useful a process for science.
Except they don't do that. What they do is cite past examples of scientific consensus and paradigms that turned out to be wrong in order to counter the idea that some given current consensus or paradigm cannot be questioned because it's "settled". And that is the state we're in at them moment, isn't it. There are calls to have people who dispute or are sceptical of certain "consensus" paradigms thrown out of their jobs, of their institutions and in some cases tried as criminals.
Well, almost everything I learned about evolution I learned outside of school, by reading books. The idea that the only chance anyone will get to learn anything is in the classroom is a lot of nonsense. So I say schools should be free to teach it or not. Richard Dawkins, after all, spoke of his awakening to biology when a teacher told him plants were green because it's a pleasant colour to the eye and such nonsense didn't do him any harm.
Now if the school is State funded then that's a different matter. Otherwise, let them teach whatever they want.
Slashdot Mirror
The critics are probably lamenting a reduction in their funding, as Marxist shills often do when they're getting less from the long suffering tax payer. The Golden Rule here is to always invoke the "common good", as long as you don't tell people that you'll decide what the common good actually is, not the people paying the taxes.
I wish the authors of studies like these and those at NASA who commission them would read Popper's The Poverty of Historicism. It would save them a lot of time, effort and the possibility they'll make gigantic fools of themselves.
Yes, socialism works very well indeed until the money runs out, which it inevitably does and will in Norway's case as well. To say Norway is doing splendidly well because it's ploughing through its savings, compared to other countries, is to miss the point.
Socialists are very good at spending other people's money, aren't they edjs.
Why don't you give some examples of countries that are successful economically that don't enjoy the fruits of economic liberalism? I realised Marx' ideas were asinine by the age of around 13. Why didn't you?
Not in the UK they don't. Owen Jones, for example, is one of the loons I'm talking about. He's all over the TV, radio and newspapers here.
Wiki
That's what Thatcher was all about.
What's more depressing is that these stories make it onto slashdot. The stupid in the environmental movement is painful to consider.
It was a Conservative government that declared war on Hitler, a Conservative Prime Minister who ran the campaign and a Conservative Prime Minister who helped end the Cold War. Did the Left contribute much to these victories? I mean apart from supplying a steady stream of useful idiots for CND and the Soviets post 1945.
What a moronic comment. Her `unworkable ideology' has been the centre ground of British politics since around 1986. Even the Labour party dropped it's idiotic "ownership of the means of production" rubbish under Blair and nobody on the left, apart from the usual loons, are arguing to bring it back.
If you want to see what a post neo-liberal political ideology looks like, go to a shop in Venezuela.
Actually, the Labour governments before her shut down more mines than she ever did; a considerable number more. But don't let the facts spoil a good fantasy. If anything destroyed the miners it was union militancy; the useful idiots of the left who allied themselves with Soviet Russia.
Why are you even talking about age of consent? It's not up to the child. It's not up to the State. It's up to the parents. We aren't talking actually doing physical or psychological harm to the child. Unless you really consider it to be that, in which case, again, I would accuse you of argumentum ad think-of-the-children.
One thing I've learned over the years is to live and let live. If believing in a big Sky Fairy is comforting to people in a way that believing, say, that Newton's inverse square law for gravity, then that's fine. The only thing I ask is that you don't insist I believe it too. The latter is, ironically, precisely what you're wishing to impose on other people's children.
That is why your ideas here are illiberal and this illiberality is merely the thin end of the wedge.
Ah. So I'm not the only who's tried to write a converter from FBX to (whatever) and found myself under a gigantic pile of spaghetti without any sauce.
Whilst we're bitching about Autodesk, someone needs to tell them that their "new" file format, FBX, is an incomprehensible mess.
Precisely. Mod Up.
Not sure why this was modded down. There's an element of truth in it.
Depends on the field. It would be better if papers were more readily retracted when wrong. And peer review itself is a kind of group-think that sets the bar very high for hypothesis that go against the paradigm and prevents publication, for very Human reasons, of contrary analysis and opinion. Peer review isn't in itself all that useful a process for science.
Except they don't do that. What they do is cite past examples of scientific consensus and paradigms that turned out to be wrong in order to counter the idea that some given current consensus or paradigm cannot be questioned because it's "settled". And that is the state we're in at them moment, isn't it. There are calls to have people who dispute or are sceptical of certain "consensus" paradigms thrown out of their jobs, of their institutions and in some cases tried as criminals.
Why are you waving your arms like that? Who are you to tell parents how to bring up their children?
It's up to the parents. It's not up to you and not up to the government.
Wow. Where does this illiberality end I wonder?
Well, almost everything I learned about evolution I learned outside of school, by reading books. The idea that the only chance anyone will get to learn anything is in the classroom is a lot of nonsense. So I say schools should be free to teach it or not. Richard Dawkins, after all, spoke of his awakening to biology when a teacher told him plants were green because it's a pleasant colour to the eye and such nonsense didn't do him any harm.
Now if the school is State funded then that's a different matter. Otherwise, let them teach whatever they want.
Science progresses one funeral at a time. - Max Planck
I think I would be, yes.
Well spotted.