You, my friend, have committed the fallacy of equivocation. You see, proof in the mathematical sense is not what science does, and not what Al Gore was referring to when he said "The debate is over?". There really are two different things going on, and they both involve logic in different ways. Al Gore was referring to an overwhelming body of knowledge and sound argumentation, which is different to proof in the mathematical sense.
Nonetheless, I suspect that you really have no interest in understanding the underlying arguments -- because it would be too threatening to you.
In other words, when it comes down to nature vs. nurture... sometimes nature wins.
Yes -- but only because we are ignorant of natures role. If people knew that nature was affecting how they process information, then they might be a little more skeptical about being self-righteous in political debates. Who could keep a straight face and say they have thought everything through.
Of course, this impacts feminist theory. They think that if nature has anything to do with gender differences, then it will be seen as inevitable. "Biology is not destiny." Paradoxically, biology will be destiny if you're ignorant about what it is doing. Nothing is what it seems.
Sure there a threats -- but the US spends more money on threats then the rest of the world combined. Somebody is being taken for a ride -- that would be the US tax-payer.
Surely there is a more cost-effective way to address threats, in the same way that you don't need to build an interstate highway for two or three cars. The US military is gratuitously over-expensive. There is no need to spend so much money.
The criminals/terrorist will already be doing this , its only ordinary Joe Public who the authorities will be snooping on. As usual.
A lot of crime is committed by completely disorganised people. Such laws will do nothing against sophisticated crime; however, a lot of crime is committed by people with tragic lives. People who have substance use problems, are compulsive, lack feasible long-term plans and have poor social support networks.
Corruption of the highest order, when you get right down to it.
Agreed. But don't forget that conservative do-gooders really believe that they are doing the right thing, and cannot see the ironic nature of what is going on. After-all, the unwashed masses need to be controlled for their own good. Moral authoritarianism is as much an ideology as it a business proposition for the private-sector profiting from the "war".
For anybody conservative or liberal who smugly thinks that they are the one who has thought it through, consider this: when identical twins are separated at birth, and tested in adulthood, their political attitudes turn out to be similar with a correlation co-efficient of 0.62 (Bouchard et al. 1990; Eaves, Eysenck, & Martin, 1989; Holden, 1987; Martin et al. 1986; Plomin et al., 1997, p. 206; Scarr & Weinberg, 1981)
So, the next time it seems a political argument is entrench -- consider that it may be far more entrenched then anyone realizes.
It implies that any government with any power will misuse it.
There are checks and balances in our system for a reason. They are based on a model of human nature that brought us democracy in the first place. It is a thoroughly conservative model of human nature by modern standards.
So... my question to you is, why should the government be circumventing judicial oversight? Why is the government all of a sudden so trustworthy, as do deny what we know about human nature? Is it because it is Harper, and you are a conservative yourself? That would be ironic.
I published some essays on the web, and am wondering why I cannot search for them through google. Curiously, by website jumps up straight away on bing. Grrr.
I'm thinking google search should:
Display the results in a table -- with a few controls on each line. I generally click on a bunch of results and open them in new tabs. Ideally I want to step back to the search result page and rank the search result: {excellent, okay, poor, junk, nasty}, or something like that. I understand that this cannot be done publically, because there will be farms of ranking computers. But having the search engine learn my personal preferences would be worth the effort. I never want to see mp3lyrics.com and there ilk near the top of my results list.
Here's the idea for Zuckerberg: let people share their page-rank preferences with each other. Imagine if a bunch of java programmers at a workplace were marking all of the good internet resources. It's a social networking idea that could cloud-source page ranking without the problems of server farms.
In the mean time, I could role my own personal service, with a search aggregator bankend. The internet is suffering under the weight of shills and snakes, Grrr.
If you make below the poverty limit, you get a 100% refund of the taxes
This just subsidizes McDonald and Wallmart's bottom line. Ideally, there should be no refund on taxes, and a higher minimum wage to compensate. Much simpler and fairer, and it isn't corporate welfare in disguise.
Well the problem is complexity and people's refusal to take the time to try to understand it.
People have always been adverse to complexity. We just want simple explanations. Even intelligent people fall prey to this without realising it.
The real problem is a fundamental break-down in campaigning. It has gone to a new low, and corruption is rife. Conservatives in Canada and Australia are following the GOP model of lying ruthlessly, emotively, and staying "on-message", with the help of big media. There is a systematic effort to create cognitive distortions, so that middle-thinking is repainted as extreme thinking.
Democracy's chief assest is checks and balances that ameliorate unbridled lust for power. Democracy is failing in light of modern marketing technology, and the GOP is leading the way.
You mean the 2008-2009 where the Dems controlled Congress? That one? I'll be glad to blame the ones in charge at the time.
What do you know about our recent economic history? Reagan, Bush and Bush were the biggest spenders in history. At least Reagan and Bush Senior raised taxes to cover their largess. GW Bush just spent money and imagined that someone else would foot the bill. And he did this during economic growth -- which is a tragic mistake according to macroeconomic theory. You should pay off debt when times a good -- thus cooling the economy and easing the inevitable downturn -- and preparing yourself for the downturn when you can stimulate the economy with deficit spending.
Obama inherited an impossible job: the bank fraud (thanks to Greenspan and co.), massive economic downturn, and two expensive unwinnable wars that pissed off the whole world.
But sure, blame Obama. Monty Python was thinking of you when they wrote:
Pray that there is intelligent life somewhere out in space, because there's bugger-all down here on Earth.
The reason that there has been no recovery is because the Democrats were not willing to bite the hand that feeds them by allowing the insolvent institutions to fail and allowing criminal prosecutions of those responsible.
While I agree with you substantially about the facts -- letting the banks fail would be a disaster. Not unprecedented, it has happened before. If anything, the present debarcle has simply highlighted that there really is such a thing as "too big to fail." Greenspan was so wrong about removing regulations, in particular, he fought hard to stop fraud investigations, because it would interfere with the efficiency of the market. He really believed that (!).
There is no reason to destroy the whole country because of the criminal actions of a few. That is adding insult to injury -- with some added extra injury for good measure. If anything, we need strict regulations on the activities of any institution that becomes too big to fail, because if they do fail, then the tax payer will be bailing them out.
Perhaps we need some revision of the treason laws -- CEOs putting the whole country in danger.
On a side-note, the Tea-bagger movement amazes me, considering that Regan, Bush and Bush were the *worst* spenders in history. At least Reagan and Bush Senior had the good grace to raise taxes to cover their largess. GW Bush just spent money, and imagined that someone else would collect the bill.
COURTESY, omfg! The guy totally stepped over the line, and deserves a good slap down for being an overbearing prick. There was no courtesy involved in his "warning". He could have levelly said "We don't appreciate the bubbles, put them away now please." Instead, he humiliated her for no reason.
Exercising authority does not mean acting like a prick. In fact, it works best the other way around: when the officer acts like a gentleman. In Canada at least, even police officers are obliged to mind their manners.
Mind you, I am not a pessimist about the energy situation. There is a lot of investment in finding alternatives, and this type of thing looks really good (energy producing roads), not least because the engineers are thinking about the materials to build the roads with.
However, one sad fact remains. Exponential growth cannot continue forever -- at some point something will break. It is just a question of what or when.
Yet if you went to the doctor would you want the medicine that treats the cause of the problem or just the symptoms? Perhaps a drug addict would just want the cure for a hang-over, and want to continue using cocaine or whatever it happens to be.
The agenda of the greens is *sustainable* economies -- as in not mortaging our children's future, either in direct monetary debt, or indirect economies that draw down on our natural resources without factoring in the true long term costs.
No doubt that language evolves, but the problem with "begging the question" is a little more pernicious. What would you rename this fallacy to? The "loaded question" fallacy?
"I've just completed Mike's [Mann] Nature [The Science Journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, form 1981 onwards) and from 1961for Keith's to hide the decline."
Well, he used the words "hide the decline" in a private email, and the context of wrong-doing is fishy - certainly not enough to suspect Mann of wrong doing. And besides, it doesn't matter what he said in a private email, it matters what he published in his papers and says in a public fashion. He was not hiding anything at all - you can see this if you actually read the article in question. Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. Note the use of the word "uncertainties" in the very title of the article. Mann states "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article." How could he be more clear than that? He wasn't hiding anything, he was bringing up questions.
I've recently been reading Descartes Meditations. When he says the only thing he can be certain of is that he exists, I am pretty sure I know exactly what he means.
One thing is for certain - you will find is emotionally too difficult to process contrary information to your views. Does that mean you exist? Descartes says yes, Buddha says no.
"Hiding a decline", actually hiding the divergence problem, is done for purely cosmetic reasons. That is to say, to avoid having to answer questions about it which those outside of the field have no knowledge of, but might be inclined to question when presented with such a graphic
This is a very interesting interpretation, but try to understand this. The hockey stick works using every other construction method. Reasons were speculated for why the tree-ring data diverged... they were sensible things such as acid rain and pollution. But being conservative, scientists just said we don't know.
So in short, the question wasn't embarrassing, it was talked about upfront in the literature long before the denial crowd got hold of the story.
Mann didn't avoid the question -- he WROTE about it
The judgement is made on the basis of there being sufficient prima facie evidence
That is an opinion, but a judge strongly disagreed with your opinion, and he had to process and comprehend the arguments from both sides.
Be honest with yourself - have you really investigated what scientists have to say about climategate? Has the reputations of scientists been tarnished so badly that you cannot trust anything a scientist says, because they have already demonstrated bad character and would say anything?
Is that what you really think??
Do you even know what scientists have to say about climategate at all??
Slashdot Mirror
You, my friend, have committed the fallacy of equivocation. You see, proof in the mathematical sense is not what science does, and not what Al Gore was referring to when he said "The debate is over?". There really are two different things going on, and they both involve logic in different ways. Al Gore was referring to an overwhelming body of knowledge and sound argumentation, which is different to proof in the mathematical sense.
Nonetheless, I suspect that you really have no interest in understanding the underlying arguments -- because it would be too threatening to you.
In other words, when it comes down to nature vs. nurture ... sometimes nature wins.
Yes -- but only because we are ignorant of natures role. If people knew that nature was affecting how they process information, then they might be a little more skeptical about being self-righteous in political debates. Who could keep a straight face and say they have thought everything through.
Of course, this impacts feminist theory. They think that if nature has anything to do with gender differences, then it will be seen as inevitable. "Biology is not destiny." Paradoxically, biology will be destiny if you're ignorant about what it is doing. Nothing is what it seems.
Sure there a threats -- but the US spends more money on threats then the rest of the world combined. Somebody is being taken for a ride -- that would be the US tax-payer.
Surely there is a more cost-effective way to address threats, in the same way that you don't need to build an interstate highway for two or three cars. The US military is gratuitously over-expensive. There is no need to spend so much money.
The criminals/terrorist will already be doing this , its only ordinary Joe Public who the authorities will be snooping on. As usual.
A lot of crime is committed by completely disorganised people. Such laws will do nothing against sophisticated crime; however, a lot of crime is committed by people with tragic lives. People who have substance use problems, are compulsive, lack feasible long-term plans and have poor social support networks.
Corruption of the highest order, when you get right down to it.
Agreed. But don't forget that conservative do-gooders really believe that they are doing the right thing, and cannot see the ironic nature of what is going on. After-all, the unwashed masses need to be controlled for their own good. Moral authoritarianism is as much an ideology as it a business proposition for the private-sector profiting from the "war".
For anybody conservative or liberal who smugly thinks that they are the one who has thought it through, consider this: when identical twins are separated at birth, and tested in adulthood, their political attitudes turn out to be similar with a correlation co-efficient of 0.62 (Bouchard et al. 1990; Eaves, Eysenck, & Martin, 1989; Holden, 1987; Martin et al. 1986; Plomin et al., 1997, p. 206; Scarr & Weinberg, 1981)
So, the next time it seems a political argument is entrench -- consider that it may be far more entrenched then anyone realizes.
It implies that any government with any power will misuse it.
There are checks and balances in our system for a reason. They are based on a model of human nature that brought us democracy in the first place. It is a thoroughly conservative model of human nature by modern standards.
So... my question to you is, why should the government be circumventing judicial oversight? Why is the government all of a sudden so trustworthy, as do deny what we know about human nature? Is it because it is Harper, and you are a conservative yourself? That would be ironic.
Can I have some of what you're smoking? I think some hallucinations would spice up my life a little.
Yours truly
Bored slashdotter.
I'm thinking google search should:
In the mean time, I could role my own personal service, with a search aggregator bankend. The internet is suffering under the weight of shills and snakes, Grrr.
If you make below the poverty limit, you get a 100% refund of the taxes
This just subsidizes McDonald and Wallmart's bottom line. Ideally, there should be no refund on taxes, and a higher minimum wage to compensate. Much simpler and fairer, and it isn't corporate welfare in disguise.
Well the problem is complexity and people's refusal to take the time to try to understand it.
People have always been adverse to complexity. We just want simple explanations. Even intelligent people fall prey to this without realising it.
The real problem is a fundamental break-down in campaigning. It has gone to a new low, and corruption is rife. Conservatives in Canada and Australia are following the GOP model of lying ruthlessly, emotively, and staying "on-message", with the help of big media. There is a systematic effort to create cognitive distortions, so that middle-thinking is repainted as extreme thinking.
Democracy's chief assest is checks and balances that ameliorate unbridled lust for power. Democracy is failing in light of modern marketing technology, and the GOP is leading the way.
You mean the 2008-2009 where the Dems controlled Congress? That one? I'll be glad to blame the ones in charge at the time.
What do you know about our recent economic history? Reagan, Bush and Bush were the biggest spenders in history. At least Reagan and Bush Senior raised taxes to cover their largess. GW Bush just spent money and imagined that someone else would foot the bill. And he did this during economic growth -- which is a tragic mistake according to macroeconomic theory. You should pay off debt when times a good -- thus cooling the economy and easing the inevitable downturn -- and preparing yourself for the downturn when you can stimulate the economy with deficit spending.
Obama inherited an impossible job: the bank fraud (thanks to Greenspan and co.), massive economic downturn, and two expensive unwinnable wars that pissed off the whole world.
But sure, blame Obama. Monty Python was thinking of you when they wrote:
Pray that there is intelligent life somewhere out in space, because there's bugger-all down here on Earth.
The reason that there has been no recovery is because the Democrats were not willing to bite the hand that feeds them by allowing the insolvent institutions to fail and allowing criminal prosecutions of those responsible.
While I agree with you substantially about the facts -- letting the banks fail would be a disaster. Not unprecedented, it has happened before. If anything, the present debarcle has simply highlighted that there really is such a thing as "too big to fail." Greenspan was so wrong about removing regulations, in particular, he fought hard to stop fraud investigations, because it would interfere with the efficiency of the market. He really believed that (!).
There is no reason to destroy the whole country because of the criminal actions of a few. That is adding insult to injury -- with some added extra injury for good measure. If anything, we need strict regulations on the activities of any institution that becomes too big to fail, because if they do fail, then the tax payer will be bailing them out.
Perhaps we need some revision of the treason laws -- CEOs putting the whole country in danger.
On a side-note, the Tea-bagger movement amazes me, considering that Regan, Bush and Bush were the *worst* spenders in history. At least Reagan and Bush Senior had the good grace to raise taxes to cover their largess. GW Bush just spent money, and imagined that someone else would collect the bill.
Maslow was just pulling that stuff out of his, um, hat =)
Deniers question all three facts that you have listed. Yes, I am afraid, the debate is really that stupid.
people are questioning the causes of climate change
And the group-ego continues full steam ahead, oblivious to new information.
Block all Chinese imports, eject the Chinese ambassador
How do you think wars start?? Best off creating a non-zero sum game. Then we are all better off.
he did give her the courtesy of a warning first
COURTESY, omfg! The guy totally stepped over the line, and deserves a good slap down for being an overbearing prick. There was no courtesy involved in his "warning". He could have levelly said "We don't appreciate the bubbles, put them away now please." Instead, he humiliated her for no reason.
Exercising authority does not mean acting like a prick. In fact, it works best the other way around: when the officer acts like a gentleman. In Canada at least, even police officers are obliged to mind their manners.
What about blanketing large tracts of land in solar-cells? Is that still okay?
Well... there is a critical shortage of raw materials. You see, we are not just reaching peak oil, but peak everything.
Mind you, I am not a pessimist about the energy situation. There is a lot of investment in finding alternatives, and this type of thing looks really good (energy producing roads), not least because the engineers are thinking about the materials to build the roads with.
However, one sad fact remains. Exponential growth cannot continue forever -- at some point something will break. It is just a question of what or when.
The actual need to do so isn't strictly relevant.
Yet if you went to the doctor would you want the medicine that treats the cause of the problem or just the symptoms? Perhaps a drug addict would just want the cure for a hang-over, and want to continue using cocaine or whatever it happens to be.
The agenda of the greens is *sustainable* economies -- as in not mortaging our children's future, either in direct monetary debt, or indirect economies that draw down on our natural resources without factoring in the true long term costs.
There is nothing wrong with that sentiement.
This is not about changing global warming - it is about sacrifice to show your worship of planet earth!
Blocking the sun for 1000 years because you don't want to turn the heat down? Get real.
No doubt that language evolves, but the problem with "begging the question" is a little more pernicious. What would you rename this fallacy to? The "loaded question" fallacy?
"I've just completed Mike's [Mann] Nature [The Science Journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, form 1981 onwards) and from 1961for Keith's to hide the decline."
Well, he used the words "hide the decline" in a private email, and the context of wrong-doing is fishy - certainly not enough to suspect Mann of wrong doing. And besides, it doesn't matter what he said in a private email, it matters what he published in his papers and says in a public fashion. He was not hiding anything at all - you can see this if you actually read the article in question. Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. Note the use of the word "uncertainties" in the very title of the article. Mann states "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article." How could he be more clear than that? He wasn't hiding anything, he was bringing up questions.
I've recently been reading Descartes Meditations. When he says the only thing he can be certain of is that he exists, I am pretty sure I know exactly what he means.
One thing is for certain - you will find is emotionally too difficult to process contrary information to your views. Does that mean you exist? Descartes says yes, Buddha says no.
"Hiding a decline", actually hiding the divergence problem, is done for purely cosmetic reasons. That is to say, to avoid having to answer questions about it which those outside of the field have no knowledge of, but might be inclined to question when presented with such a graphic
This is a very interesting interpretation, but try to understand this. The hockey stick works using every other construction method. Reasons were speculated for why the tree-ring data diverged... they were sensible things such as acid rain and pollution. But being conservative, scientists just said we don't know.
So in short, the question wasn't embarrassing, it was talked about upfront in the literature long before the denial crowd got hold of the story.
Mann didn't avoid the question -- he WROTE about it
I hope you can appreciate the difference.
The judgement is made on the basis of there being sufficient prima facie evidence
That is an opinion, but a judge strongly disagreed with your opinion, and he had to process and comprehend the arguments from both sides.
Be honest with yourself - have you really investigated what scientists have to say about climategate? Has the reputations of scientists been tarnished so badly that you cannot trust anything a scientist says, because they have already demonstrated bad character and would say anything?
Is that what you really think??
Do you even know what scientists have to say about climategate at all??