The PEER site on the grandparent post, for example, makes a number of direct accusations
So what? Let's assume those direct accusations made are 100% true and accurate. That still leaves far more accusations in this study which are not described at all, let alone in detail sufficient to be independently examined. Just because you have some direct accusations, even assuming them to be valid, why would you assume the rest of the people in the study have valid complaints?
It is amazing how many people in this thread bow to the gods of science but then completely ignore science when it suits them.
From the web sites of groups whose purpose is to get out exactly that kind of information? That's fine to get the one side, but not fine if you're looking for balance, which is what I am doing.
"Technical information" is not the same as data. Yes, someone was quoted saying that, but the study didn't say it, that I saw. "Technical information" can include lots of things other than what "data" implies to me.
But maybe I'm not reading it properly? I dunno.
But again, that is not what the article is alleging. They're saying that they're being ordered to conceal or even change data, to fit foregone conclusions which benefit industry.
That is how *they see it.* If we knew the issue they were referring it, would we come to the same conclusion, that this is what happened? This is what I am skeptical of.
I've known a lot of scientists. They come to their conclusions, and in the end, they don't like anyone changing anything. They take it personally, and they often ascribe motives unreasonably to the people doing them this horrible injustice (as they see it).
I am not questioning their science as much as I am their judgment in perceiving the situations they are referring to.
Can you at least agree that if this was happening, it would be a problem?
Too vague. Let's make up a scenario or two.
If there's a study that says there's 20% more pollutants in the air than 5 year ago, and they were told to change it, this would be a problem.
Now, let's say the same study also extrapolates the data and says that in 20 years, we'll have 100% more pollution, assuming all related factors or growth in factors will remain constant. Well, I'd want to remove that from the final study too, because it's nonsense. I mean, it's true, but that assumption is unwarranted and its inclusion wouldn't serve any scientific purpose.
And don't tell me that's an unreasonable scenario, because it isn't.
I don't see any reason to believe that all of the interventions were of the innocent, correct, fact-checking variety in your example.
Neither do I. I wouldn't do that. Likewise, I don't see any reason to believe that all -- or any -- of them are less innocent. I can't say without knowing well the specifics of an individual case.
Religion does not mean belief in what other people say. Religion means belief in or worship of supernatural or divine power.
You're wrong. Religion is a set of beliefs about how the world works, usually accompanied by a set of rituals. In this case, the belief is in the natural order and the scientific method, and the rituals are peer-reviewed papers, for example.
And even if you don't accept it is a religion, it is close enough that the same terminology is useful to understand the point. For example, the argument used here, that scientists have some special impermeable knowledge that only those with specific training can comprehend, is the exact same belief found in many of the world's religions.
And I find such beliefs objectionable.
You expect us to take your criticisms of the allegedly sloppy methodology of a group of scientists in your WA neighbourhood seriously, yet you did not cite any of your sources.
This discussion is not about me proving they are wrong. I never intended for the specifics to be taken seriously, or else I would have provided the information. It was merely an example to explain what I was referring to, a reason why a. science is not merely about the nuts and bolts that require advanced learning to understand, but is largely about interpretations that laypeople can perform, and b. scientists are not to have their word accepted just because they have the priestly label "scientist."
I don't expect you to take things at my word. I do expect you to not assume there's nothing there just because I didn't present the full argument (not that you did this, but the other poster certainly did).
Note especially the recommendation goals, where it is said they are general and not specific, and not meant to include all possible circumstances, and that each locale would need to modify the recommendations to suit their needs, etc.
Then, for example, the Criticial Areas Assistance Handbook from CTED gives an "Example Code Provision" that says all use within 300 feet of a wetland shall be regulated, and bases it on that study, which doesn't say that.
And then a group of scientists hired by the county comes in to the county council with their own study, based on the state example provision, and says the state says there should be a buffer of 300 feet. And unless you follow their footnote to the CA Handbook and then that footnote to Management Recommendations: Riparian, and you just take the scientists at their word just because they are scientists, then you don't realize that they are wrong, that the science does not say 300 feet is required.
And then when the county council does their reseasrch and says no to the scientists, they complain that science is being ignored.
This is what has happened and continues to happen. I won't go into any more detail about this issue here, because I don't have the time or inclination. The larger point about trusting scientists does not stand or fall on the accuracy of my position on this smaller local issue.
I do. You ask me to believe in something without verification. That is the definition of faith.
A good scientist would not ask me to believe his conclusions without verification, but would hope I would be skeptical of his claims.
that's only required if you're too lazy to do the work required to have an informed opinion
No, that's not what you said. You said I needed to get an advanced degree, which is neither necessary nor sufficient to the task of having an informed opinion. But even if I did not work to get an informed opinion, the default should not be to assume what I am told is true, but to realize that I don't know what is true. That is science.
You provided an example of an issue without any citiations of the source documents or scientific data
So? I was not attempting to prove that point to you, I was using it as an example, and had no reason to give you a full accounting of the evidence. And you assume I am wrong just because I didn't provide it, when in the context, it was not necessary or appropriate? That's nonsense.
And you seem to feel that political example is sufficient reason to label other scientific findings "bad science".
I never stated or implied any such thing. You're making that up entirely.
While you may feel that I should assume that you have sufficient evidence to support your assertions
I never stated or implied any such thing. You're making that up entirely.
I am not obligated to believe that your evidence is sufficient or even supports your position without seeing that evidence.
I never asked you to.
And here I would just plain disagree.
Thereby proving you have a learning disability. You *assumed* without justification that I had no scientific arguments just because I didn't give them to you in detail. And you think you can comment on scientific method, when you continue to make all these unfounded assumptions?
The example your provided has no appearance of "bad science".
Oh, so because I didn't give the detail you wanted, therefore you state as matter of fact that I think science is solely political, assuming that there is no science involved in my statements.
Show me where I said that you should take anything a scientist says on faith
OK: "If you are unwilling/unable to spend the time required to acquire the scientific knowledge required to make informed statements, supported by evidence, about a subject you are best served by assuming the scientific consensus is correct."
That wasn't hard.
There is a profound difference between being able to speak intelligently about a field and pronouncing the work of scientists in that field as bad science without presenting evidence that supports that claim.
Why did you assume I didn't have such evidence? That was neither explicit nor implicit in my statements. In fact, it was just the opposite: my statements assumed there was evidence to back up the claims, and I gave you a brief overview of some of that evidence for a particular example.
Viewing the scientific process solely as a political process is as much a mistake
One I did not make, again, either explicitly or implicitly.
You said you wrote nothing about religion, and yet you are saying I should take things by faith from people out society has duly designated as speakers of the truth, without questioning them.
Sounds like religion to me.
But the real problem with your statements is that they ignore so much of reality, of how this system works. Very little about this is science. Science is the starting point. How that science is evaluated and molded is the bulk of it.
For example, some scientists in WA -- via the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) -- say that, a wetland buffer may be set that encompasses existing development, and that this development is "nonconforming" and subject to strict rules and prohibitions. They cite "best available science" that shows that given a type of wetland, a buffer of a certain size is required for its protecting.
However, the studies they cite are often about habitats distinctly different from the ones the studies are used to protect. For example, the studies were performed on naturally occurring buffers, and the recommendations contained therein are on the restoration of disturbed or affected habitats. The studies do not say anything about existing development where the wetland was formed later, but the scientists say they apply anyway.
Also, the studies often focus on the needs of a wide range of species, but then are used to protect a single species, using the same recommended buffer.
Also, the studies only give recommendations for naturally occurring buffers, which is often not as efficient as manmade buffers.
And worst, some of the cited recommended buffer sizes are not actually based on what the study says is the recommended buffer size, but what the actual size of the study was.
These scientists make lots of errors, or make judgment calls that are not based on science. There's a lot of debate over restoration vs. protection, for example, and the scientists will sometimes arbitrarily choose a restoration model, even though the lawmakers chose a protection model.
I am not questioning the initial study. I am questioning what that study means in a broader context, and this is not an issue only for scientists to have reasonable input on, and it's irresponsible for anyone to say otherwise.
The only other intellectually honest thing to do is to spend the time to get your own advanced degree in the field, so you can make competent statements and provide the evidence to support your position.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that someone should have an advanced degree in a particular field to speak intelligently on it. Many of our great scientists in history never had advanced degrees.
What matters is having an understanding of the issues involved. And most of the issues involved are not about the science, but about what the science means, and any intelligent person who studies the issues is capable of determining that for themselves.
The alleged problem is that are being ordered to alter data and sign their names to conclusions they don't believe in.
That's not what the story said. There was nothing about altering data or signing of names mentioned in there. It was about altering conclusions, and this is not about signing names: it is not personal. It's business, to coin a phrase. And I would have no problem telling a scientist to alter their conclusion if I were convinced they were using bad science, or to exclude some science if I thought it were bad.
The conclusions clearly come from sources who do not have the independence or qualifications to be taken seriously.
Taken seriously, perhaps, but that does not mean they are accurate or easily proven false. The example I gave about calling the study size the recommended buffer size is actually very common. It's used by lots of people. Even when you point it out, people continue to use it and call it the best available science just because it's been done for so long.
I do admire your skepticism -- you're not intimidated by someone in a white coat. But don't extend that to contempt of them.
I don't.
Do you really think there's no difference in competence between the local enviro-crank group and federal scientists?
Why do you think I was differentiating?
Myself, I find it a little bit easier to believe that the political administration is the side with the political agenda.
I find it hard to believe that either side is significantly more motivated by agenda than the other.
Which is what any good scientist would demand of everyone else. Scientists should not aim to be trusted, but to have others verify their work. If they believe in the scientific method above all, how could they want it any other way?
I have heard scientists who have told said that their science supports something *it does not support*. Then when overruled, they complain that political or business interests are overriding science. But it often is not true. Don't believe them just because they say it.
For example, here in WA, we have a lot of land use issues. A common practice is for the environmental lobby to say that the "best available science" says that for a certain type of environment with a certain type of animal, a certain buffer size is required. But often they are just wrong.
There are many ways in which they are wrong. Sometimes they unscientifically compare different types of environments as though they are the same. Sometimes they don't take preexisting man-made structures into account. Sometimes -- this is no joke -- they mistake the size of the study for the recommended buffer size.
These sorts of things go on all the time. And there's no justification for taking their word for it, especially when they have their own political agenda.
to belittle the event IS to suggest the mistake was a small one and unworthy of consideration.
No, that is to speak of the event accurately, according to every bit of actual evidence (and I note again you have provided no evidence whatsoever, of any kind, to demonstrate this was more than just a joke that was mistakenly published).
That you think this event is in any way comparable to what CBS did is really all I should have needed to know to just ignore everything else you had to say. You lack judgment.
If you are going to accuse me of being a liar, you'll need more than out of context quotes to prove it.
Yes, which is why I provided a quote that was not out of context.
Fox's response to criticism was not to pass the whole incident off as a joke
Yes, it was. Stop lying. I even provided Fox's quote precisely to that effect.
they never said "We meant the piece to be a satire, stop complaining".
And I never implied they did. So what?
They said: It was a mistake
Which is also what I said. So what?
though they mention the article was written in jest, their response was not just to simply say that
And I never implied it was. You're not very good at this.
Why you think "passing it off as a joke" is the same as "saying only that it was a joke, and not also a mistake" is beyond me. Try to think. For your own sake.
I am more gullible for believing it was a very convenient mistake?
You said it was intentional. So yes, you are incredibly gullible. You believe what Al Franken tells you to believe. Pity.
I think you meant to say "No." at the end of that line.
No.
I do not agree with your view of the matter at all.
An offhanded joke on a major news site? I see them, but to my mind they're clearly marked.
Right, hence the statement that it was posted BY ACCIDENT.
So if for example, some senior news correspondant on CNN for instance made up some quotes by Bush about, say, something ridiculous like God told him to invade Iraq, and ran the story as a news item, you would have no problem with that?
If it was intentional, or was an accident that was not immediately revoked and apologized for? Yes.
But then, I am not a typical reader of the Fox News website. I suspect the way I and a typical reader would have interpreted the story would be somewhat different, don't you agree?
Right. As proven here by your belief that it was posted intentionally, you are far more gullible and less clueless than they are.
They didn't try to say it was just a joke
Again, you're lying. The Fox apology read, in part, "The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast."
Yes. No clear-thinking person could possibly believe otherwise.
A senior news correspondant passes off a story without any clear indication it is false
Either you didn't read it, or you have no logical sense in you, or you're just lying. Which is it?
It must be one of the three, because any clear-thinking person would read it and know it was fake. Passages like "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry said and "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry said are self-evidently false.
No clear-thinking person can think this was intended to be taken seriously. You're just making yourself look bad here, so if you must, then please continue!
I have asked you a number of times to ACTUALLY show why what I have said is, in fact false, which you have not done.
Yes, I clearly did. You said the Democrats want to count as many votes as possible, and I showed an example where there was both time and opportunity to count more votes, but the Democrats were against it, because they were winning (that week in between King County certifying, and the state certifying).
What you said about the Democrats there was clearly incorrect. Why is this so hard for you?
that I knowingly spoke falsehood
You're free to claim, "I wasn't lying, I just didn't know." But you've been shown the facts and you still maintain you weren't wrong, so that would be difficult to claim at this point.
I'm saying that your characterization of Rossi contesting the election, and Gregoire asking for the hand recount as basically the same thing because they're both 'proceeding in accordance with the rules' is false.
So they are not both proceeding according to the rules?
Rossi and Vance, in discussing contesting the election have accused king county of criminal negligence
I've not seen Rossi accuse King County of any crimes. Vance perhaps has, but I try not to listen to him talk these days.
I think that to conflate the two actions as merely "following the rules" is misleading, and I think you know that.
I don't see why it is misleading in any way. Gregoire said that she should not concede because she still had legal avenues to take. She said Rossi should concede, even though he still has legal avenues to take. *shrug*
I'm saying the opportunity for Gregoire to, without making a case one way or the other regarding the validity of the election itself, or the law governing the process, pay for the hand recount of as many of the ballots cast in the election as she wanted, was, in fact mandatory.
Right, and the opportunity for Rossi to contest the election is mandatory. I have never contended that it is Rossi's right to get a revote. I've contended it is his right to contest, and that it is ludicrous to ask him to concede.
Rossi is not forcing a revote, he's asking for one, and if it is granted, then that is only because the law mandates that the people who do make that decision are allowed to do so.
you're just goint to sarcast at anyone that wants to discuss what possible future action a political figure might take?
You were putting the cart before the horse, demanding to know the basis for the contest before that information is available. I made note of this. Don't be so sensitive.
yes, that would be rather hypocritical. could you toss a link to quotes? I hadnt read that.
I've heard her say it post-county-certification, but can't find the exact quote offhand, but this is close, as she knows at this point she is likely to win and she asks him to accept the result. Better, she says, "I am shocked that his political party is suggesting that legitimate votes should not be counted in this election," which is what her party did a few days later, when Berendt said votes should be excluded simply because counties had already certified.
But then again, both Paul Berendt (WA Dem chair) and Chris Vance (WA Rep chair) have said incredibly stupid things in the last two months.
Lie to you? a bit melodramatic, dont you think?
Shrug. What would you prefer I call it when to make the people you don't like look bad, you assert as fact something that is clearly false?
There are plenty of ways to put various safeguards into the system. And I should come clean (not that it's a secret) and note that I am for a significantly smaller federal government, so there is much less for them to do, and much less for outside influences to bother with in the first place.
Also, "neophyte" is far too strong. In my proposed system, term limits would be at least two consecutive in the Senate (12 years) and three in the House (six). So you've still got plenty of experienced people at any given time. And this would possible be only a limit on consecutive terms, so people could come back later; and most of the people running would have strong legal or business or political experience (as they do now).
But regardless, yes, the technocrat staff and other powerful people would take even more power than it has now, if nothing else changed. But more would change. The system would adapt to face the new realities. For example, more comprehensive training opportunities for incoming representatives (necessary given the new reality of greater turnover), more openness and disclosure of operations, etc. There's numerous ways to deal with the new problems.
Actually, not remotely. I never said your claims were false because you are sad. I just said, you are sad. I gave other reasons why your claims were false.
What I did was a snide personal attack, not an ad hominem. Sad for you that you can't tell the difference.
anything I claim without a link is obviously false
No... with or without a link, your claim that the PATRIOT Act has kidnapping provisions is false, as is your claim that everyone detained under the PATRIOT Act is never heard from again. Both are obviously false on their face, and need no links to prove it.
The effect of the USA Patriot Act upon businesses... is not to find and incarcerate terrorists--there are far more ways to investigate threats to the nation than to check on a terrorist's reading and listening habits--but to put a sweeping chilling effect upon Constitutional freedoms.
That's exceptionally poor writing. If there are "far more ways" to investigate threats than to check reading habits, that necessarily implies that checking reading habits is such a way, and therefore finding and incarcerating them is necessarily an effect.
It seems like he is conflating purpose and effects. Either that, or he just doesn't know what the heck he means. Silly.
The Act butts against the protections of the First (free speech), Fourth (unreasonable searches), Fifth (right against self-incrimination), and Sixth (due process) amendments.
Well, except, no, it doesn't. It has no First or Fifth problems, at all. It might have some Fourth problems, via the Sixth, especially in regard to using the FISA provisions against American citizens.
But to say that lawfully investigating something might cause someone to be more careful about speaking and is a de facto First amendment violation is nonsense; similarly, it's nonsense to say that a lawful investigation into someone's activities constitutes a breach of the right against self-incrimination.
And none of those examples about people changing their habits is remotely true. We've already seen the PATRIOT Act in effect for three years, and none of it has come to pass.
How ironic it is that a President who says he wants everyone to read is the one who may be responsible for giving the people less choice in what they may read.
Now, *this* is an ad hominem.
Your original claim that I replied to that "more journalists fall on the left than right" has not, that I can find, been linked or referenced to any study or report that agrees with it.
No one asked me to provide a reference, until you sortof did just now. There are many surveys, here's one. It's one of those pervasively true things that I don't bother looking up or providing a link to unless specifically asked.
I would imagine this complicates your arbitrary assertions of political connotations to interface behaviour.
It was a joke, playing on his sig and his perpetual flames against conservatives.
the advent of politics.slashdot has caused me great dismay by revealing additional views of people whom I'd previously liked and respect; and yes, I'm looking at you, pudge
For your own sake -- it certainly has no impact on me -- I adjure you to not be so closed-minded that you can't even like or respect someone who has different political views than you.
"pretty far left"? Then it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with a dozen articles supporting some "far left" cause such as drug de-criminalization
Everything is relative. And by that standard, National Review is pretty far left, which I think we can both agree is inaccurate. I was speaking about left and right on the mainstream political scale, since that's the context we're in.
Look at Bush's past speeches and see how many times he had refered to either "finding" or being "close to finding" WMD's in Iraq.
Whether or not Bush has done things you find distasteful is beside the point. What I am talking about is that these things cause the left to be blind in other areas. And take a look at how many times the left has reversed its position just because Bush took one. For example, Kerry was all in favor of drawing down troops in Korea, until Bush proposed a plan to do it.
Or more recently, look at Social Security. For years, Democrats have said Social Security is in trouble. But now that Bush has a plan to fix it that they don't like, they say Social Security is just fine, and that anyone who says it is in trouble (apparently, including Alan Greenspan, who sounded a major alarm about it in August) is lying.
This is what I am talking about. You can say Bush's plan sucks, but to say SS is not in trouble is just hate-induced myopia.
This falls into the same propaganda technique I stated earlier
You're an idiot. I often only quote small parts, because anyone wanting to see the whole thing can click back. The "since" that I included denoted it was an incomplete phrase, that people could use as a signal to see the complete thing if they wished.
Saying that "more journalists fall on the left than right" implies that the media at large has a liberal bias.
And as I have clearly shown, no, it does not. I've stated clearly that I hold to the former and not the latter, so any implication to the contrary of my statements is in your own little mind.
Saying that the PATRIOT Act has not silenced free speech ignores this: anyone locked up in prison (normally) can still communicate to the outside world, and their Constitutional rights are still intact. I doubt you have met anyone who was kidnapped by a provision of the PATRIOT Act and lived to tell about it.
Again, sad. The PATRIOT Act has no provision for kidnapping, so there is no such person. And I've not personally met people arrested under PATRIOT Act provisions, but I've seen and heard from them. *shrug*
So instead of giving actual examples of a curtailing of free speech rights, you claim something has not happened, which has. Oops.
And here we have a classic example of an ad hominem attack.
Classically bad, yes. Many people make this mistake, so don't feel bad. An ad hominem, as popularly known, is attacking the man to make the argument. I am doing no such thing: my attacking of the man is entirely separate from my argument.
Slashdot Mirror
There don't seem to be any counterpoints here.
I gave them previously.
The PEER site on the grandparent post, for example, makes a number of direct accusations
So what? Let's assume those direct accusations made are 100% true and accurate. That still leaves far more accusations in this study which are not described at all, let alone in detail sufficient to be independently examined. Just because you have some direct accusations, even assuming them to be valid, why would you assume the rest of the people in the study have valid complaints?
It is amazing how many people in this thread bow to the gods of science but then completely ignore science when it suits them.
look at a sample complaint.
From the web sites of groups whose purpose is to get out exactly that kind of information? That's fine to get the one side, but not fine if you're looking for balance, which is what I am doing.
"Technical information" is not the same as data. Yes, someone was quoted saying that, but the study didn't say it, that I saw. "Technical information" can include lots of things other than what "data" implies to me.
But maybe I'm not reading it properly? I dunno.
But again, that is not what the article is alleging. They're saying that they're being ordered to conceal or even change data, to fit foregone conclusions which benefit industry.
That is how *they see it.* If we knew the issue they were referring it, would we come to the same conclusion, that this is what happened? This is what I am skeptical of.
I've known a lot of scientists. They come to their conclusions, and in the end, they don't like anyone changing anything. They take it personally, and they often ascribe motives unreasonably to the people doing them this horrible injustice (as they see it).
I am not questioning their science as much as I am their judgment in perceiving the situations they are referring to.
Can you at least agree that if this was happening, it would be a problem?
Too vague. Let's make up a scenario or two.
If there's a study that says there's 20% more pollutants in the air than 5 year ago, and they were told to change it, this would be a problem.
Now, let's say the same study also extrapolates the data and says that in 20 years, we'll have 100% more pollution, assuming all related factors or growth in factors will remain constant. Well, I'd want to remove that from the final study too, because it's nonsense. I mean, it's true, but that assumption is unwarranted and its inclusion wouldn't serve any scientific purpose.
And don't tell me that's an unreasonable scenario, because it isn't.
I don't see any reason to believe that all of the interventions were of the innocent, correct, fact-checking variety in your example.
Neither do I. I wouldn't do that. Likewise, I don't see any reason to believe that all -- or any -- of them are less innocent. I can't say without knowing well the specifics of an individual case.
Religion does not mean belief in what other people say. Religion means belief in or worship of supernatural or divine power.
You're wrong. Religion is a set of beliefs about how the world works, usually accompanied by a set of rituals. In this case, the belief is in the natural order and the scientific method, and the rituals are peer-reviewed papers, for example.
And even if you don't accept it is a religion, it is close enough that the same terminology is useful to understand the point. For example, the argument used here, that scientists have some special impermeable knowledge that only those with specific training can comprehend, is the exact same belief found in many of the world's religions.
And I find such beliefs objectionable.
You expect us to take your criticisms of the allegedly sloppy methodology of a group of scientists in your WA neighbourhood seriously, yet you did not cite any of your sources.
This discussion is not about me proving they are wrong. I never intended for the specifics to be taken seriously, or else I would have provided the information. It was merely an example to explain what I was referring to, a reason why a. science is not merely about the nuts and bolts that require advanced learning to understand, but is largely about interpretations that laypeople can perform, and b. scientists are not to have their word accepted just because they have the priestly label "scientist."
I don't expect you to take things at my word. I do expect you to not assume there's nothing there just because I didn't present the full argument (not that you did this, but the other poster certainly did).
But if you must know, I am referring to the CTED's sourcing of "Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitat: Riparian" by Knutson and Naef, 1997.
Note especially the recommendation goals, where it is said they are general and not specific, and not meant to include all possible circumstances, and that each locale would need to modify the recommendations to suit their needs, etc.
Then, for example, the Criticial Areas Assistance Handbook from CTED gives an "Example Code Provision" that says all use within 300 feet of a wetland shall be regulated, and bases it on that study, which doesn't say that.
And then a group of scientists hired by the county comes in to the county council with their own study, based on the state example provision, and says the state says there should be a buffer of 300 feet. And unless you follow their footnote to the CA Handbook and then that footnote to Management Recommendations: Riparian, and you just take the scientists at their word just because they are scientists, then you don't realize that they are wrong, that the science does not say 300 feet is required.
And then when the county council does their reseasrch and says no to the scientists, they complain that science is being ignored.
This is what has happened and continues to happen. I won't go into any more detail about this issue here, because I don't have the time or inclination. The larger point about trusting scientists does not stand or fall on the accuracy of my position on this smaller local issue.
I don't see faith in that statement anywhere.
I do. You ask me to believe in something without verification. That is the definition of faith.
A good scientist would not ask me to believe his conclusions without verification, but would hope I would be skeptical of his claims.
that's only required if you're too lazy to do the work required to have an informed opinion
No, that's not what you said. You said I needed to get an advanced degree, which is neither necessary nor sufficient to the task of having an informed opinion. But even if I did not work to get an informed opinion, the default should not be to assume what I am told is true, but to realize that I don't know what is true. That is science.
You provided an example of an issue without any citiations of the source documents or scientific data
So? I was not attempting to prove that point to you, I was using it as an example, and had no reason to give you a full accounting of the evidence. And you assume I am wrong just because I didn't provide it, when in the context, it was not necessary or appropriate? That's nonsense.
And you seem to feel that political example is sufficient reason to label other scientific findings "bad science".
I never stated or implied any such thing. You're making that up entirely.
While you may feel that I should assume that you have sufficient evidence to support your assertions
I never stated or implied any such thing. You're making that up entirely.
I am not obligated to believe that your evidence is sufficient or even supports your position without seeing that evidence.
I never asked you to.
And here I would just plain disagree.
Thereby proving you have a learning disability. You *assumed* without justification that I had no scientific arguments just because I didn't give them to you in detail. And you think you can comment on scientific method, when you continue to make all these unfounded assumptions?
The example your provided has no appearance of "bad science".
Oh, so because I didn't give the detail you wanted, therefore you state as matter of fact that I think science is solely political, assuming that there is no science involved in my statements.
You suck at this.
Show me where I said that you should take anything a scientist says on faith
OK: "If you are unwilling/unable to spend the time required to acquire the scientific knowledge required to make informed statements, supported by evidence, about a subject you are best served by assuming the scientific consensus is correct."
That wasn't hard.
There is a profound difference between being able to speak intelligently about a field and pronouncing the work of scientists in that field as bad science without presenting evidence that supports that claim.
Why did you assume I didn't have such evidence? That was neither explicit nor implicit in my statements. In fact, it was just the opposite: my statements assumed there was evidence to back up the claims, and I gave you a brief overview of some of that evidence for a particular example.
Viewing the scientific process solely as a political process is as much a mistake
One I did not make, again, either explicitly or implicitly.
You said you wrote nothing about religion, and yet you are saying I should take things by faith from people out society has duly designated as speakers of the truth, without questioning them.
Sounds like religion to me.
But the real problem with your statements is that they ignore so much of reality, of how this system works. Very little about this is science. Science is the starting point. How that science is evaluated and molded is the bulk of it.
For example, some scientists in WA -- via the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) -- say that, a wetland buffer may be set that encompasses existing development, and that this development is "nonconforming" and subject to strict rules and prohibitions. They cite "best available science" that shows that given a type of wetland, a buffer of a certain size is required for its protecting.
However, the studies they cite are often about habitats distinctly different from the ones the studies are used to protect. For example, the studies were performed on naturally occurring buffers, and the recommendations contained therein are on the restoration of disturbed or affected habitats. The studies do not say anything about existing development where the wetland was formed later, but the scientists say they apply anyway.
Also, the studies often focus on the needs of a wide range of species, but then are used to protect a single species, using the same recommended buffer.
Also, the studies only give recommendations for naturally occurring buffers, which is often not as efficient as manmade buffers.
And worst, some of the cited recommended buffer sizes are not actually based on what the study says is the recommended buffer size, but what the actual size of the study was.
These scientists make lots of errors, or make judgment calls that are not based on science. There's a lot of debate over restoration vs. protection, for example, and the scientists will sometimes arbitrarily choose a restoration model, even though the lawmakers chose a protection model.
I am not questioning the initial study. I am questioning what that study means in a broader context, and this is not an issue only for scientists to have reasonable input on, and it's irresponsible for anyone to say otherwise.
The only other intellectually honest thing to do is to spend the time to get your own advanced degree in the field, so you can make competent statements and provide the evidence to support your position.
It is intellectually dishonest to say that someone should have an advanced degree in a particular field to speak intelligently on it. Many of our great scientists in history never had advanced degrees.
What matters is having an understanding of the issues involved. And most of the issues involved are not about the science, but about what the science means, and any intelligent person who studies the issues is capable of determining that for themselves.
I'm sorry, I am not especially religious. I don't believe priests^Wscientists are imbued with special powers.
The alleged problem is that are being ordered to alter data and sign their names to conclusions they don't believe in.
That's not what the story said. There was nothing about altering data or signing of names mentioned in there. It was about altering conclusions, and this is not about signing names: it is not personal. It's business, to coin a phrase. And I would have no problem telling a scientist to alter their conclusion if I were convinced they were using bad science, or to exclude some science if I thought it were bad.
The conclusions clearly come from sources who do not have the independence or qualifications to be taken seriously.
Taken seriously, perhaps, but that does not mean they are accurate or easily proven false. The example I gave about calling the study size the recommended buffer size is actually very common. It's used by lots of people. Even when you point it out, people continue to use it and call it the best available science just because it's been done for so long.
I do admire your skepticism -- you're not intimidated by someone in a white coat. But don't extend that to contempt of them.
I don't.
Do you really think there's no difference in competence between the local enviro-crank group and federal scientists?
Why do you think I was differentiating?
Myself, I find it a little bit easier to believe that the political administration is the side with the political agenda.
I find it hard to believe that either side is significantly more motivated by agenda than the other.
Which is what any good scientist would demand of everyone else. Scientists should not aim to be trusted, but to have others verify their work. If they believe in the scientific method above all, how could they want it any other way?
I have heard scientists who have told said that their science supports something *it does not support*. Then when overruled, they complain that political or business interests are overriding science. But it often is not true. Don't believe them just because they say it.
For example, here in WA, we have a lot of land use issues. A common practice is for the environmental lobby to say that the "best available science" says that for a certain type of environment with a certain type of animal, a certain buffer size is required. But often they are just wrong.
There are many ways in which they are wrong. Sometimes they unscientifically compare different types of environments as though they are the same. Sometimes they don't take preexisting man-made structures into account. Sometimes -- this is no joke -- they mistake the size of the study for the recommended buffer size.
These sorts of things go on all the time. And there's no justification for taking their word for it, especially when they have their own political agenda.
Which is hard for me since my startup disk is on a FW HD.
to belittle the event IS to suggest the mistake was a small one and unworthy of consideration.
No, that is to speak of the event accurately, according to every bit of actual evidence (and I note again you have provided no evidence whatsoever, of any kind, to demonstrate this was more than just a joke that was mistakenly published).
That you think this event is in any way comparable to what CBS did is really all I should have needed to know to just ignore everything else you had to say. You lack judgment.
If you are going to accuse me of being a liar, you'll need more than out of context quotes to prove it.
Yes, which is why I provided a quote that was not out of context.
Fox's response to criticism was not to pass the whole incident off as a joke
Yes, it was. Stop lying. I even provided Fox's quote precisely to that effect.
they never said "We meant the piece to be a satire, stop complaining".
And I never implied they did. So what?
They said: It was a mistake
Which is also what I said. So what?
though they mention the article was written in jest, their response was not just to simply say that
And I never implied it was. You're not very good at this.
Why you think "passing it off as a joke" is the same as "saying only that it was a joke, and not also a mistake" is beyond me. Try to think. For your own sake.
I am more gullible for believing it was a very convenient mistake?
You said it was intentional. So yes, you are incredibly gullible. You believe what Al Franken tells you to believe. Pity.
I think you meant to say "No." at the end of that line.
No.
I do not agree with your view of the matter at all.
Who cares? You're a proven liar.
An offhanded joke on a major news site? I see them, but to my mind they're clearly marked.
Right, hence the statement that it was posted BY ACCIDENT.
So if for example, some senior news correspondant on CNN for instance made up some quotes by Bush about, say, something ridiculous like God told him to invade Iraq, and ran the story as a news item, you would have no problem with that?
If it was intentional, or was an accident that was not immediately revoked and apologized for? Yes.
But then, I am not a typical reader of the Fox News website. I suspect the way I and a typical reader would have interpreted the story would be somewhat different, don't you agree?
Right. As proven here by your belief that it was posted intentionally, you are far more gullible and less clueless than they are.
They didn't try to say it was just a joke
Again, you're lying. The Fox apology read, in part, "The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast."
Cameron did it as just "an offhanded joke"!
Yes. No clear-thinking person could possibly believe otherwise.
A senior news correspondant passes off a story without any clear indication it is false
Either you didn't read it, or you have no logical sense in you, or you're just lying. Which is it?
It must be one of the three, because any clear-thinking person would read it and know it was fake. Passages like "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" Kerry said and "It's about the Supreme Court. Women should like me! I do manicures," Kerry said are self-evidently false.
No clear-thinking person can think this was intended to be taken seriously. You're just making yourself look bad here, so if you must, then please continue!
I have asked you a number of times to ACTUALLY show why what I have said is, in fact false, which you have not done.
Yes, I clearly did. You said the Democrats want to count as many votes as possible, and I showed an example where there was both time and opportunity to count more votes, but the Democrats were against it, because they were winning (that week in between King County certifying, and the state certifying).
What you said about the Democrats there was clearly incorrect. Why is this so hard for you?
that I knowingly spoke falsehood
You're free to claim, "I wasn't lying, I just didn't know." But you've been shown the facts and you still maintain you weren't wrong, so that would be difficult to claim at this point.
I'm saying that your characterization of Rossi contesting the election, and Gregoire asking for the hand recount as basically the same thing because they're both 'proceeding in accordance with the rules' is false.
So they are not both proceeding according to the rules?
Rossi and Vance, in discussing contesting the election have accused king county of criminal negligence
I've not seen Rossi accuse King County of any crimes. Vance perhaps has, but I try not to listen to him talk these days.
I think that to conflate the two actions as merely "following the rules" is misleading, and I think you know that.
I don't see why it is misleading in any way. Gregoire said that she should not concede because she still had legal avenues to take. She said Rossi should concede, even though he still has legal avenues to take. *shrug*
maybe you shouldnt call it anything
Maybe you shouldn't lie.
I'm saying the opportunity for Gregoire to, without making a case one way or the other regarding the validity of the election itself, or the law governing the process, pay for the hand recount of as many of the ballots cast in the election as she wanted, was, in fact mandatory.
Right, and the opportunity for Rossi to contest the election is mandatory. I have never contended that it is Rossi's right to get a revote. I've contended it is his right to contest, and that it is ludicrous to ask him to concede.
Rossi is not forcing a revote, he's asking for one, and if it is granted, then that is only because the law mandates that the people who do make that decision are allowed to do so.
you're just goint to sarcast at anyone that wants to discuss what possible future action a political figure might take?
You were putting the cart before the horse, demanding to know the basis for the contest before that information is available. I made note of this. Don't be so sensitive.
yes, that would be rather hypocritical. could you toss a link to quotes? I hadnt read that.
I've heard her say it post-county-certification, but can't find the exact quote offhand, but this is close, as she knows at this point she is likely to win and she asks him to accept the result. Better, she says, "I am shocked that his political party is suggesting that legitimate votes should not be counted in this election," which is what her party did a few days later, when Berendt said votes should be excluded simply because counties had already certified.
But then again, both Paul Berendt (WA Dem chair) and Chris Vance (WA Rep chair) have said incredibly stupid things in the last two months.
Lie to you? a bit melodramatic, dont you think?
Shrug. What would you prefer I call it when to make the people you don't like look bad, you assert as fact something that is clearly false?
There are plenty of ways to put various safeguards into the system. And I should come clean (not that it's a secret) and note that I am for a significantly smaller federal government, so there is much less for them to do, and much less for outside influences to bother with in the first place.
Also, "neophyte" is far too strong. In my proposed system, term limits would be at least two consecutive in the Senate (12 years) and three in the House (six). So you've still got plenty of experienced people at any given time. And this would possible be only a limit on consecutive terms, so people could come back later; and most of the people running would have strong legal or business or political experience (as they do now).
But regardless, yes, the technocrat staff and other powerful people would take even more power than it has now, if nothing else changed. But more would change. The system would adapt to face the new realities. For example, more comprehensive training opportunities for incoming representatives (necessary given the new reality of greater turnover), more openness and disclosure of operations, etc. There's numerous ways to deal with the new problems.
Maybe you need a refresher on the ad hominem
... with or without a link, your claim that the PATRIOT Act has kidnapping provisions is false, as is your claim that everyone detained under the PATRIOT Act is never heard from again. Both are obviously false on their face, and need no links to prove it.
... is not to find and incarcerate terrorists--there are far more ways to investigate threats to the nation than to check on a terrorist's reading and listening habits--but to put a sweeping chilling effect upon Constitutional freedoms.
Nope!
This is EXACTLY what you are doing.
Actually, not remotely. I never said your claims were false because you are sad. I just said, you are sad. I gave other reasons why your claims were false.
What I did was a snide personal attack, not an ad hominem. Sad for you that you can't tell the difference.
anything I claim without a link is obviously false
No
The effect of the USA Patriot Act upon businesses
That's exceptionally poor writing. If there are "far more ways" to investigate threats than to check reading habits, that necessarily implies that checking reading habits is such a way, and therefore finding and incarcerating them is necessarily an effect.
It seems like he is conflating purpose and effects. Either that, or he just doesn't know what the heck he means. Silly.
The Act butts against the protections of the First (free speech), Fourth (unreasonable searches), Fifth (right against self-incrimination), and Sixth (due process) amendments.
Well, except, no, it doesn't. It has no First or Fifth problems, at all. It might have some Fourth problems, via the Sixth, especially in regard to using the FISA provisions against American citizens.
But to say that lawfully investigating something might cause someone to be more careful about speaking and is a de facto First amendment violation is nonsense; similarly, it's nonsense to say that a lawful investigation into someone's activities constitutes a breach of the right against self-incrimination.
And none of those examples about people changing their habits is remotely true. We've already seen the PATRIOT Act in effect for three years, and none of it has come to pass.
How ironic it is that a President who says he wants everyone to read is the one who may be responsible for giving the people less choice in what they may read.
Now, *this* is an ad hominem.
Your original claim that I replied to that "more journalists fall on the left than right" has not, that I can find, been linked or referenced to any study or report that agrees with it.
No one asked me to provide a reference, until you sortof did just now. There are many surveys, here's one. It's one of those pervasively true things that I don't bother looking up or providing a link to unless specifically asked.
Those are not specifically Emacs keybindings, they are control sequences that pre-existed Emacs, and work in most shell and Unix programs.
(BTW, you can turn on full Emacs keybindings in BBEdit, right down to being able to save with ctrl-x ctrl-s, and quit with ctrl-x ctrl-c. Crazy, man.)
I would imagine this complicates your arbitrary assertions of political connotations to interface behaviour.
It was a joke, playing on his sig and his perpetual flames against conservatives.
the advent of politics.slashdot has caused me great dismay by revealing additional views of people whom I'd previously liked and respect; and yes, I'm looking at you, pudge
For your own sake -- it certainly has no impact on me -- I adjure you to not be so closed-minded that you can't even like or respect someone who has different political views than you.
you'll see how that is wrong.
It isn't wrong.
"pretty far left"? Then it shouldn't be hard for you to come up with a dozen articles supporting some "far left" cause such as drug de-criminalization
Everything is relative. And by that standard, National Review is pretty far left, which I think we can both agree is inaccurate. I was speaking about left and right on the mainstream political scale, since that's the context we're in.
Look at Bush's past speeches and see how many times he had refered to either "finding" or being "close to finding" WMD's in Iraq.
Whether or not Bush has done things you find distasteful is beside the point. What I am talking about is that these things cause the left to be blind in other areas. And take a look at how many times the left has reversed its position just because Bush took one. For example, Kerry was all in favor of drawing down troops in Korea, until Bush proposed a plan to do it.
Or more recently, look at Social Security. For years, Democrats have said Social Security is in trouble. But now that Bush has a plan to fix it that they don't like, they say Social Security is just fine, and that anyone who says it is in trouble (apparently, including Alan Greenspan, who sounded a major alarm about it in August) is lying.
This is what I am talking about. You can say Bush's plan sucks, but to say SS is not in trouble is just hate-induced myopia.
This falls into the same propaganda technique I stated earlier
You're an idiot. I often only quote small parts, because anyone wanting to see the whole thing can click back. The "since" that I included denoted it was an incomplete phrase, that people could use as a signal to see the complete thing if they wished.
Saying that "more journalists fall on the left than right" implies that the media at large has a liberal bias.
And as I have clearly shown, no, it does not. I've stated clearly that I hold to the former and not the latter, so any implication to the contrary of my statements is in your own little mind.
Saying that the PATRIOT Act has not silenced free speech ignores this: anyone locked up in prison (normally) can still communicate to the outside world, and their Constitutional rights are still intact. I doubt you have met anyone who was kidnapped by a provision of the PATRIOT Act and lived to tell about it.
Again, sad. The PATRIOT Act has no provision for kidnapping, so there is no such person. And I've not personally met people arrested under PATRIOT Act provisions, but I've seen and heard from them. *shrug*
So instead of giving actual examples of a curtailing of free speech rights, you claim something has not happened, which has. Oops.
And here we have a classic example of an ad hominem attack.
Classically bad, yes. Many people make this mistake, so don't feel bad. An ad hominem, as popularly known, is attacking the man to make the argument. I am doing no such thing: my attacking of the man is entirely separate from my argument.